Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (2nd nomination)

Stereotypes of Jews

Completely unverified article full of original research. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duh Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Striking duplicate vote. 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep duh. There's an article on "Stereotypes of African Americans" that people seem to think has merit. Certainly, a similar article examining the stereotypes of Jews through the ages, in historical and sociological context, is useful. Currently the "article" is little more than a list -- a stub of sorts -- that requires expanding. But certainly not deletion. What's good for the goose.... deeceevoice (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete duh, based on the Stereotypes of African Americans article, which is a model for this article, or maybe Merge to Antisemitism when this article is deleted, I think this should be redirected to Antisemitism, which already has several examples of Jewish stereotypes. Terrible POV magnet, causing much untold grief. Delete and salt. travb (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (edit conflict) but not based on the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument the others have put. At least the current version of the article which describes Jews as "venal, money-grubbing or thrifty, enterprising" can be verifiable but just not verified as of yet (I also claim some common sense in this case). One need not go far to find scholarly sources analyzing Jewish stereotypes Google Scholar, for instance. MuZemike (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the customary "Duh". I changed my vote from keep to merge, everything that was written here, is better and more thoroughly written on the Antisemitism page. I encourage the creator to add sourced content there. travb (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your suggestion to merge. Yeah, I started the article as a list merely to get the ball rolling; it was totally stream-of-conscious and not intended to be an article. And, yes, I did it, in part, because "other crap exists." (Why the hell should Black folks be the only ones on Wikipedia with a separate article on stereotypes? I'm fed up with the disparity in treatment. Answer: They shouldn't.) Aside from that, the matter of Jewish stereotypes is certainly important enough to be treated at length in an article separate from one on anti-Semitism, which, although it may touch upon negative perceptions of Jews, is not the ideal venue for a thorough examination of the subject. One obvious reason to start a separate article is a practical one: article length. Some examination of these stereotypes/archetypes through the ages and how they have shaped public perception and impacted history could be fascinating, enlightening stuff -- if people are willing to do the work to produce a quality article. deeceevoice (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The article has since been edited and the litany of unverified attributes removed, and replaced with a fine stub. My main concern was the list, that was a terrible excuse for an article. Since we clearly have sources for expansion, and the list has been replaced with a stub, I've no problem withdrawing the AfD should someone wish to do so. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article talk page. There's plenty of source material there for a good start on a decent article. (It was easy enough to come up with in just a few minutes by merely googling "Jewish stereotypes," "Jewish archetypes," "Satanic Jews," "Jewish stereotypes Nazi Germany," etc. Jeeze.) The subject is certainly worthy of a stand-alone piece.

Oh, yeah. Duh. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dee, wake up, he is willing to withdraw the AfD. Say thank you, tell him he is a great editor, and move on. I still think this article should be merged into antisemitism. travb (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's probably a good article here, but what's on the page is rubbish. The article needs to be cited, and the citations need to be scholarly. As is stands, this reads like a really bad middle school essay. I would also just like to gently caution anyone about being overzealous in trying to save this article. Sensitivity is needed and sourcing needs to be done thoughtfully and carefully. Removing uncited assertions isn't censorship, it's being a good editor.` AniMate^talk 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's censorship when it's removed from the article talk space -- which is why I restored it. Save your "editing" for the article. deeceevoice (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again Dee, I understand your frustration as a new editor having a page deleted. But you are making enemies here. Strike or remove your comment, and apologize. Not for the editor you are apologizing too, but for your own self interest. travb (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dee has been here since 2004. Badger Drink (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as contentless wiki-link farm. The article creator herself admits (in the article creation edit) to this being a case of WP:OTHERCRAP (and her choice of targets is bringing me back to 1984). To put it bluntly, I see nothing here worth saving. Perhaps a few of the wiki-links could be moved to the Antisemitism "see also". Regardless of whether or not this title could make for an encyclopedic article (and it may well make for one), I think we can all agree that this current "stub" is neither encyclopedic nor a critical "stepping-stone" foundation for a future encyclopedic article - so nothing of serious merit will be lost in its deletion. If the article is substantially re-written before close, I will happily re-visit my opinion. Badger Drink (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 3rd nomination

[See talk page for why these nominations are being merged] travb (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Jews

Delete Unsourced and highly negative article. As the previous AFD was withdrawn, I don't think it's eligible to be kept because of a pre-existing consensus, especially seeing as the list is currently under scrutiny at ANI. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think it's a good topic for an article--it strikes me as highly encyclopaedic and I don't see this content as antisemitic.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC) -- my view changed on reading the altered article, see later comment.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you need to say why.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 04:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would support a merge to anti-semitism, but a nomination within hours of the last one seems rather vexatious. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nevermind, it would be best if this was deleted and a more serious attempt at coverage done elsewhere/some over time. Dance With The Devil (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any meaningful content (which there is none here) could be placed in Antisemitism or Ethnic stereotype, but I can see no use whatsoever for having a topic here. --B (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to say merge anything vaguely encyclopedic to either antisemitism or some form of cultural depiction section at Jew...but there is not text here. I hate seealso bits. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete This is a WP:POINTy exercise in WP:OTHERCRAP. There is potentially a good article about this subject waiting to be written, but considering its history this isn't going to be it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in its present form it refers to sufficiently notable topics with wp articles--in essence, a disam page or a list article. I think its tolerable. DGG (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The old version was an obvious delete, the current one... is sketchy. Take away all the bad stuff and what you're left with doesn't really say much. This could be a well-researched and interesting topic, but in its current incarnation just seems to be more trouble than it's worth. l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There could be an article on this topic, but it would need to be properly sourced and comply with WP:NPOV rather than a mere stream of consciousness as this article has been.Rlendog (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a dicdef with another bit that would be more appropriate in another article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to recreate this with actual sources they can. I can't help but feel any entry created from this would be tainted. AniMate^talk 07:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Sceptre (!) and due to general lack of helpful content. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure a scholarly article could be written on the subject. This isn't it. --Carnildo (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourceable content beyond a definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above opinions generally fail to address the potential of the article, per our policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:BEFORE. In particular, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. The main article Jew seems to have little to say about this topic and is already over 100K which is too large per WP:SIZE. There are several notable stereotypes of Jews - the intellectual, mother, userer, etc. - and it took me all of 10 seconds to find a book which is dedicated solely to this topic: From Shylock to Svengali: Jewish Stereotypes in English Fiction. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles that could be strongly POV need strong sources from the start. If this is going to stay it can only stay with proper citations and sources. Bring up Stereotypes of African Americans is excellent - that is a well structured, properly sourced robust article. This stub (and its predecessors) is hopeless. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article from the source mentioned above. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently original research and POV. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can do better than this. For almost any minority group you can find perfectly reasonable people asserting all manner of vective in their general direction. This doesn't make it encyclopedic and in a case like this actually harms the project and is a disservice tto all concerned; our editors, admins cleaning up one dramedy after the next and our readers who look to us for insightful sharing what reliable sources have reported - not a wp:coatrack of cultural slurs. -- Banjeboi 12:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica to address your comment that the topic is not encyclopedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has 3 sources which address the topic directly and in detail, and there are many more available. The article is fully cited to these sources, so concerns of original research and WP:COATRACKhood are unfounded. Currently it looks like a WP:LIST, which makes me uncomfortable but isn't grounds for deletion, and there are plenty of sources for discussing rather than merely listing stereotypes. Juzhong (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several strong sources on the article talk page as well. deeceevoice (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My current efforts have been to establish a good framework for the article. The job of hanging prose upon this skeleton is made difficult because of the hot-button nature of the topic which will require good citations for every sentence, I expect. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Topic sensitivity is no reason for censorship. deeceevoice (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the reopening of this AfD is purely punitive in the wake of a disagreement over User:travb/User: Inclusionist's (same user) determination to improperly edit/hide from view my talk page contributions and a threat on my talk page. See my comments here[1] First, he supports the article, then withdraws his support when he doesn't get his way. What? So, suddenly the article no longer has merit? Hogwash!deeceevoice (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (changed from weak keep above as a result of revisions to the article). First, I agree with Deeceevoice that topic sensitivity is not grounds for censorship. Second, I agree with DGG that it serves as a potentially useful counterpoint to anti-semitism. Third, I share Dance With The Devil's concern that the repeated nominations in AfD may be vexatious rather than substantive; this could be a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Thailand where Thai Chinese—particularly the Hakka—are often compared compared to Jews, either as a compliment or in disparagement, depending upon the bias of lecturer or audience. (So similar are they that the Chinese Jews have had difficulty in retaining their ethnic identity.) I'd like to see the present article grow so that a Chinese article could be cloned from it. And Gypsies and Indians and Persians in diaspora, too. The common thread that I see is ancestral ties going back to time immemorial, and shared behaviors in how in- and out-groups react in very similar ways to the resulting strictures. This in contrast with ethnic stereotypes that don't maintain comparable lineage memes. Pawyilee (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it'll take some hard work to pull this together, but it can happen. I did a quick review of the sources and things are looking good. WP:NOT reminds us that Wikipedia isn't censored; any view expressed here in AfD along the lines of "we shouldn't have an article like this" conflicts with that core policy. I also think that there is a difference between "antisemitism" (i.e. fear or hatred of Jews) and simple stereotypes (i.e. Jews are often known for having big noses), so a merge between this article and antisemitism is unwarranted. Warren -talk- 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone wants to put the hard work in they can do it. Until then, I don't think we should be keeping articles around based on their potential. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]