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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish[edit]

Inherently, and unresolvably POV as shown in 8 pages of archived discussion, on-going edit-warring to push POV. Also violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, original research, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought among other policies. Natsume Soseki 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian fetish. Gazpacho 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ok, there seems to be some heated discussion on the talk page, and a small bit of edit warring (although I've seen much much worse) but neither of those justify deletion. Moreover, a quick perusal of the talk pages suggests to me that the nominator has been involved in said warring and at the very least has several edits on the article. Of course, editing an article does not preclude someone from later nominating it AfD, but I have to say that I find it incongruous that someone feels it's worth their time to edit an article and make several discussions on the Talk page, and then later things the article is worthy of removal. But aside from all that, this seems like a reasonably-sourced phenomenon in the literature, and thus satisfies WP:V and doesn't break WP:OR. --Deville (Talk) 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. None of the cited policies support deletion. This is, as far as I can see, an actual phenomenon that is notable and so warrants a Wikipedia entry if one can be written. That an article is currently dead-locked by POV warriors is not reason to delete either. Yes, the article appears to contain a lot of original research—that is a basis for rewriting and remove the OR though, not deletion. Furthermore, from the Talk page, this appears to be a bad-faith nomination by an editor frustrated by a lack of consensus support for their ideas (thus the "strong" keep on principle; otherwise it would just be a keep). — Saxifrage ✎ 23:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is one of those cases where most people know it exists, but there aren't any good sources to back it up, so original research and personal opinion creep in. It seems that creating a neutral encyclopedia article on this subject is impossible. It may be nice to have a definition at Wiktionary, but not here. Brian G. Crawford 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unless the title is inherently POV, it's not impossible to create a neutral article on any subject. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a white man who has dated East Asian women and white women, I find the title fairly offensive and POV, but I wasn't talking about the title. Brian G. Crawford 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I... huh? I know you weren't. You said it was impossible, I said that there is no subject for which it is impossible to write a neutral article (excepting the special case when the subject itself is inherently POV, e.g. List of evil acts by Cuba). — Saxifrage ✎ 08:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. As previous editors have mentioned, the article contains some small amounts of WP:OR and ((toofewopinions)). However, this can easily be overcome by removing unsourced statements and replacing them with a larger range of statements from academic and literary sources, in order to promote WP:V and WP:NPOV as per Wikipedia policy. --Wzhao553 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Obviously a major cultural thing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The topic deserves an article, but the article itself needs a complete overhaul. Too long and convoluted. DejahThoris 05:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is notable. If there's edit warring going on, then Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes can be utilized, but the article subject matter is perfectly acceptable. 23skidoo 06:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up, but a lot of the statements are already sourced, and the subject seems notable enough. If the article is POV then this should be discussed in the talk page. There are other ways of making articles neutral. Deleting won't help. Aucaman^Talk 11:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as per 23skidoo -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I don't see how this article violates any guidelines/policies cited by this nom. I also note that the nom seems to have recently set up an account and has been involved in edit warring with this article. Afd should not be used to resolve content disputes. -- JJay 15:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article certainly needs help. There's probably been an RfC before, but another one might be helpful. Most of the article is about asian stereotypes and speculation that those fuel the fetish, rather than about the fetish itself. Шизомби 17:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic exists, and though defining it exactly certainly has been controversial, controversy in and of itself is not a good reason for deletion - after all, there are articles on racism and white privilege, which are similarly controversial issues. This issue needs to be mentioned and addressed, not erased. --Gar2chan 02:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - OK, Aucaman and Saxifrage have convinced me. I'm changing my recommendation on the condition that the page be blanked and rewritten along the lines of my suggestion below. (See comment and suggestion below)--WilliamThweatt 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree that an "Asian Fetish" is a real phenomenon, but as written, this article is basically a soap-box for Political Correctness, among other things. Also it veers way off-topic. For example, there's a section entitled something like "Stereotypes of the Asian Male" which goes on to describe how this particular contributor believes Asian Males are portrayed in American Media, which has nothing to do with an "Asian Fetish". Also, the term is thrown around way too often at any White male who happens to be dating, or married to a female of Asian descent and has develped a derogatory meaning. --WilliamThweatt 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these may be true, but I don't see how deleting the whole article is a good solution to these problems. Aucaman^Talk 04:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - This article should be deleted and separate articles written on the 1) valid, psychological term 2) colloquial usage (this one could even be simply a definition in Wiktionary)--WilliamThweatt 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a delete vote then. An article that is deleted is not allowed to be re-created without a very good reason. If we already have a very good reason ("it should be rewritten") to undelete, then it shouldn't be deleted in the first place. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep citations ok. enough reference. PoV does not make an article contender for deletion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is clearly taking only one point of view, it has been written with reference only to white men (which is racist with no rational basis). Although there are numerous citations, a closer look reveals the research is poor quality and/or poorly reflected in the document and the title. The very title "Asian Fetish" carries racist undertones and an unbalanced negative point of view. This article should no more exist than one called "White Stupidity". Who has the authority to distinguish "Asian Fetish" from natural "inter-racial" (whatever that means) love? The term "Asian Fetish" is clearly nothing more than a racial insult. People either have "hate of asians" (are racist) or "attraction to asians" (neutral/positive). The term "Asian Fetish" is oxymoronic! Let's strike a blow against racism, let's delete this page. Hontogaichiban 02:08, 01 May 2006
  • Comment: Would you say that Fat fetish should be deleted because no-one has the authority to distinguish between natural fat-love and "fat fetish" and that it's inherently anti-fat and an unbalanced negative point of view? — Saxifrage ✎ 02:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Yes I would. I'm glad my argument has come across so clearly. Hontogaichiban 00:24, 02 May 2006
• Keep I just did a Google search on "Asian fetish" and our article was the number one search return, right underneath the "asianfetish.com" porno ad. This thing hurts my brain; it's a textbook case of what not to do when writing an article. Nevertheless, I don't think there's much doubt the phenomenon exists, though whether as an activist meme or real cultural issue is anybody's guess. We should have an article, just not this article. Burn it down to the ground, banish the POV pushers to WikiGehenna, and upon its ashes let a new stub grow. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - none of the reasons cited are actual reasons for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. NPOV means we improve the article, not delete it. AnonEMouse 17:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I agree that this article clearly has a POV. It may be possible to make it NPOV but in the past year or so since the last VFD no one has demonstrated any effort to make it more encyclopedic, do original researvch, add sources or make it in fact NPOV. Very juvenile, POV, and possibly racist. Exactly -- Wikipedia is NOT a soap box. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Make a blog if you want to rant. Soda80 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article and eliminate any original research. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The disclaimer at the top notwithstanding, the article is basically an attack page against white (male)-Asian (female) relationships. A good many of the sources cited are badly-written intensely POV opinion pieces, not even pretending to be scholarly in any way. (People should read them before stating the article is well-researched.) To take just one, frankly I find the "Racist Love" article, which is quoted extensively, to be an idiotic, hate-filled rant. The authors attempt to link racist hate-- say, lynching and dragging a man behind a pickup because of his race-- with white men marrying Asian women. Obviously there is racism involved here, but it comes from the authors of the article, not those (myself included) who are involved in interracial relationships. The authors project absurd motives upon white-Asian relationships, stating that they are based on stereotypes from a century ago. (No, all your "well-researched" opinion sources aside, I did not marry my wife thinking she was Anna May Wong in Thief of Bagdad (1924).) The article is POV, a soapbox for racist activists, rife with original research and conjecture, and "owned" by a male, Asian American activist who does not hide his intent to mold the article to his own POV. Human Fetishist 17:50, 3 May 2006 (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.