Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian fetish (3rd 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 Keep (closed by non-admin) as per 3 previous afd's, this afd is heading the same way. RMHED 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asian fetish

Asian fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article Asian fetish has been nominated for deletion twice three times before. Although it is uncommon that an article be nominated for the third fourth time, I nominate the article for deletion again for different reasons.

The article has gone through a lot of overhaul since the nominations for deletion and not in a good way. The article has had multiple problems, one of them being original research and lack of reliable sources. There are only few sources, and everything deemed to be OR has been deleted and the article is still a mess. The templates and the external links seem to be about twice the size of the actual article. I propose that this article be either deleted or be merged into Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians. mirageinred 03:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC) mirageinred 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC) mirageinred 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I didn't notice that there was another page named "third attempt." mirageinred 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The most recent deletion discussion ("3rd attempt") suggested that the article be trimmed down to only the information that was sourced. However, the article has yet to be cleaned up, and problems still remain. mirageinred 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per reasons previously stated under the keep arguements on the first, second, thrid CfDs. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 05:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I agree to user Christopher Mann McKay .The former deletion discussions show clearly the great scientific and political significance of this topic and the political struggle against physical anthropology which all has to be included.The wrecked article with its "warning" labels being longer than the article itself is a symbol of the destruction of serious science in the West. Consensus is fine intended for truth finding, but maybe it would be better if some articles would be written by a new d'Alembert and Diderot.80.138.154.98 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I concur with the 2 previous strong keeps.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Needs cleanup not AfD. --DAJF 13:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I only scanned through the old discussions, but I don't see any problems with the current version of the article that would require deletion. The subject is notable and a great number of reliable sources exist that can be used to verify the content. While synthesis of the content of these sources would qualify as original research, I don't think there is enough in the current article to qualify it for deletion. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 14:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This is probably an article that would benefit from a bit more subjectivity. Merger with Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians is pretty near inconceivable; while an Asian sexual fetish is no doubt based on stereotypes, the article ought to point some of them out, and note their inherent contradictions. Some Asian fetish material plays off of perceived submissiveness, but there is also the frequently encountered stock fictional character of the dragon lady. Since there is so little about this sort of thing in the article in its current state, it doesn't belong with the stereotypes article at present. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - aren't articles only suppose to be put up at AFD twice? Rudget _zŋ 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no limit. One article in particular (which will remain nameless) was deleted (finally) after 18 AFDs. shoy (^words _words) 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:Ah, I see. I still have a lot to learn then :) Rudget _zŋ 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Wow, think of the billions of fetishists in China, Japan, India, etc. who have "a sexual preference for Asian people". Mind boggling. Mandsford 02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is clearly sufficient material to show it's encyclopedic. The nom's argument is that he thinks it needs editing or perhaps merging, which is hardly a reason for deletion. I hope sentiment will clearly build about the attitude to take towards repeated nominations such as this -- the matter has been raised repeated on the talk page for AfD, and the people who comment there seem to prefer to leave it as it is. If people are finally beginning to think otherwise they should let their voice be heard there -- and on other appropriate policy pages. Consensus about policy can change. it is time this one did.
• Keep. AfD is not cleanup, and the subject is definitely notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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.