Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases based on stereotypes (Second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. -

Common phrases based on stereotypes

Common phrases based on stereotypes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kept no consensus by

• Delete. We need a non-biased definition of "common". And are they truly based on the stereotypes, or just tangent? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, too vague and always subject to POV. Budgiekiller 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. How did this survive the first time? JuJube 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subjective enough to be unworkable, has a strong western-centric bias and is subject to lots of
  original research. Trebor 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Trebor. GassyGuy 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Dragomiloff 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep - Jeez, look at the article before voting, please. The article is sourced and encyclopaedic. None of the rationals advanced for deletion are actually true. WilyD 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what if it's sourced? Sources can be biased. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read
      WP:NPOV also explains that opinions are perfectly reasonable for articles when they're cited, verifiable opinions of experts and the like. Every source used in Wikipedia is biased - this isn't a problem, it's merely a fact of life - because every source we don't use is also biased. Sources need to be reliable, not unbiased. WilyD 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • You can look at
    WP:V has been cited as something of which this "article" falls afoul. GassyGuy 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm sorry if my tone was a little frustrated - it is frustrating when editors don't put due diligence into investigating an article nominated for deletion. Given that the list is well sourced, the claim that the list inclusion is subjective is demonstratably false, as I noted. Given the copious reliable sources, and the passing of all relevent guidelines and policies, the claim that the subject matter is unencyclopaedic is at best dubious and at worst false. Given the profusion of other demonstratably false claims made so far too vague and always subject to POV, subjective enough to be unworkable, Is this not just a
      slang or idiom guide
      ? and so on, it's not unreasonable to look at a highly dubious assertion with no real rational that is incompatible with a thorough investigation of the circumstances and conclude it was an error made due to hasty judgement.
    • Which brings me to
      assuming good faith - although my tone may have been a little frustrated, it's clear from my earlier comments that I did assume good faith. I surmised that the editors reached their erroneous conclusions due to oversights that were the result of a hasty investigation, rather than any sort of maliciousness. Given that an in depth, good faith investigation of the article will necessitate a "vote" of keep, the only way to assume good faith is to assume the delete "votes" were the result of honest errors that arose from insufficient investigation, rather than some active desire to damage the encyclopaedia. WilyD 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? You didn't understand my point, either; my point is that a biased claim being supported by a source does not mean that you are allowed to put that biased claim in an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are good lists, and this is one of them The categorization within the list is helpful, and that's one of the criteria for lists. By WP standards, every one of the early commentators were behaving reasonably well. Wouldn't matter , anyway. Having looked at the title, and then looked at the list, it is understandable that those who looked only at the title might think this deleteableDGG 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused, but, regardless, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I or anyone else didn't look at this list. How is this not just an arbitrary collection of phrases? What is this demonstrating? What makes this encyclopaedic? GassyGuy 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that this is one of the few good list that we have here. I do think it needs to be renamed though. The "common" is too subjective to stay. How about just Phrases based on stereotypes. If you need to be more descriptive you could put "Racial stereotypes" or "Cultural stereotypes". 205.157.110.11 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.