Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex girl 2nd 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. Daniel.Bryant 07:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Essex Girl

Fairly much the same as the first nom. This is NOT notable, even though many people say it is. This is frankly classism and stereotyping. The article is depraved and degrading. Delete. Snuogo 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Snuogo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Previous afd:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essex_girl - speedily kept, but due to nominator being a sockpuppet. Bwithh 18:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Perfectly notable. The article does mention about the stereotypical image and comment on it. 'Depraved and degrading' could not be further from the truth. ><Richard0612 ^UW 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable sterotype. References check-out. Catchpole 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Badly needs a rewrite with proper sourcing. The photos are also highly dubious and should be removed ( in particular, the second photo may count as using Wikipedia for a personal attack on living persons). But this is an encyclopedically notable stereotype, comparable for instance with Sloane Ranger - although in reality the Essex girl stereotype is widespread across provincial towns in the UK, and it seems like Essex is just London shorthand for "provincial". Disclaimer: I grew in a London suburb in Essex. Bwithh 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per all the arguments above. --Daniel Olsen 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and run a sock check on the nominating user; their first and only edits are to get rid of this article and make personal attacks on others. Silensor 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Classism and stereotyping by itself are not sufficient reasons to delete an article about a phrase that has a history. We haven't deleted any other slur on Wikipedia because of this, so just clean it up. ColourBurst 19:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• KeepGood article about a cultural phenomenon (the stereotypical jokes, not the people) that had and to some extent still has national currency. Photos needed removingand now have been. Apart from questionable dates, article is OK. To respond to User:Snuogo, the article is not depraved and degrading; using sterotypes may be, reporting them is not. Emeraude 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. This is a pretty good description of the term. Artw 04:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Cultural phenomemon known right the way to the other side of the globe (and I'm about as far from Essex as you can get). Grutness...wha? 04:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - very widely used term. Timrollpickering 01:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep please agree that this is probably baid faith nomination anyway Yuckfoo 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep as bad faith nomination. Just because the article offends the sensibilities of the nominator, it's notable. I doubt if a single person in Britain has not heard the expression. The expression may be classist and stereotyping, depraved and degrading, but these are not legitimate grounds for deletion, as wiki is not censored. Ohconfucius 05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - well-known stereotype. Anyway, removing Essex girl but leaving Essex man would surely be sexist ... :-) Saint|swithin 15:36, 26 October 2006 (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.