Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redneck-Asian
- 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 DELETE. Re: Hasteur's comment below, I don't think a snowball would last even three hours in Hell. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redneck-Asian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Prod. "Redneck" is not a scientific classification of race. "Asian" is too general. Article overall does not support a world view.
Another editor says: Complete original research, no references, borderline attack. I concur. Phearson (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this an attack on anybody. I have several friends who call themselves redneck-asians because of some of the things i mentioned in the article. It is completley harmless. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Asian people, rednecks and anyone from a different culture or country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.190 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Complete, utter OR. No question. Kansan (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are some, but the concept has not gained the notability needed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a seemingly non-notable stereotype, and the article is full of unreferenced speculation. We could make an infinite number of similarly titled articles (for example, Redneck-African American, Redneck-Mexican, Redneck-Canadian, etc, Redneck-German, etc), but they would be similarly non-notable and non-encyclopedic. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obiously not to be taken seriously. Nothing racist about it. 69.85.217.190 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously not to be taken seriously. That in itself is a reason to delete. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, being half Asian, I would be considered a "redneck-Asian." The article doesn't offend me, but it still isn't encyclopedic. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's why I refused its attack-CSD Phearson (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Made-up term with no currency; I'm the one who made the "borderline attack" comment. This kind of article is often made as a joke, not always maliciously, to make fun of someone, and given the reference to a specific place, it presumably has a target in mind. In any case, not a serious article. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and close debate per WP:SNOW. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and close per WP:SNOW. — Jeff G. ツ 04:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Should we go to Jews and list stereotypes there? This is a racist article, which inhibits progress for civilisation. Meanwhile, there are no references, and if this is a joke article, that is a reason to delete. 43?9enter (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Junk. Get rid of it--Hokeman (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow. Close this puppy, y'all. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obiously not to be taken seriously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing but WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:NEO on the basic Delete. Obviously a HOAX and therefore qualifies for CSD:G3. Sidebar note: SNOWing a delete discussion in less than 3 hours is typically not a valid reasoning. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2011 (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.