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 per consensus. Afd is not the place for resolving disputes. PeaceNT 06:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is utterly atrocious, full of uncited POV, original research, and continuous edit warring. In my opinion, the title alone makes it inherently POV and unsalvageable. The result of the previous deletion discussion was "keep and cleanup," but, as usual, the latter part hasn't happened – and it's clear to me that it never will. The problems with article ownership are just too severe. It's been tagged for cleanup for nearly a year, but is actually worse now that it was then. It's time to pull the plug. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, it's badly written, of dubious POV, and a magnet for WP:OWN, but unfortunately none of those are a reason for deleting it. One way forward might be to cut it down to its bare (and sourced) definitions. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but trim down to its very core. Absurd article. --Haemo 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to do that when I get a chance, but I have the feeling it will be reverted in minutes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not for solving the problems listed in the nomination. Maxamegalon2000 05:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not for solving scientific disputes. 80.138.172.213 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In the last few months the HongQiGong, me (Teji), and to a lesser extent Computer1200 have contributed the most to the discussion and editing of this page. Despite intense differences of opinion we have actually made some minor progress. It is easy to come into the article (or back to after a year) and say "delete." But I encourage those for deletion, but especially those who want to keep the article to review the following discussion sections (as consensus on the first few paragraphs has been reached.) Furthermore, the main problems with the article is the use of student opinion pages and internet forums as support for outlandish begging-the-question statements like "Asian fetish as a cause of crime." Half of the article (or more) consists of these unattributable and unsubstantiated statements. To appease Hong, I recommended creating a separate section called "Commentary, Opinions, and Activism" to address the issues to which he is so attached. With support, we can move the questionable material into that section, or remove it altogether. Most importantly is the support of the editors on this page. Please help the article by supporting and enforcing my restructuring effort, or at least the effort to remove questionable material.

[[1]] - Initiation of rewriting, first paragraph

[[2]] - Discussion on terminology section and rewrite of the paragraph

[[3]] - Discussion of origin of term section, rewrite of Hwang's theory, discussion on moving Hwang's theory out of terminology section

[[4]] - Discussion on separating neutral info from commentaries and opinions

[[5]] - Suggestion to remove "Asian fetish as a cause of crime section"

[[6]] - Suggestion to remove "Stereotypical media portrayals" section.

[[7]] - Complaint about racism

In general, removing the opinions would remove any need to balance them or verify them. Most of them are based on student opinion pages, forums, and are generally unrelated, unreliable, and unsubstantiated. Please make support the effort to remove or restructure. With more support, this article can be cleaned up. Teji 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive coverage given to Hwang's theories clearly violate the undue weight provision of NPOV. This is a marginal scholar, and yet his views are about the only ones given any room in the article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per EliminatorJR and Maxamegalon. I recommend using higher forms of dispute resolution if necessary. (I think there was an RfC at some point, but no arbitration cases.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. --Candy-Panda 13:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oh, goody. The Asian Fetish vandal is now back, adding Nazi rubbish to the article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and instead or removing dubious material, preferably source it or reword it in a neutral way, though it does seem that has been tried without much success so far DGG 07:46, 20 April 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.