The result was Keep. For rationale see talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Completely unverified article full of original research. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Oh, yeah. Duh. ;) deeceevoice ( talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
[See talk page for why these nominations are being merged] travb ( talk) 08:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Expecting that to have been compiled and written up in 4 days by editors, who have simultaneously had to deal with the somewhat hysterical reactions of other editors on several discussion fora, including "I'm insulted by stereotypes!" and "Stereotypes are untrue!" (neither of which are relevant to whether a subject can be covered in an encyclopaedia), in addition to the disruptive tactics of the article's creator (who has explicitly stated the point that xe wants to make using disruption), is quite unrealistic.
Stubs are imperfect and almost by definition not comprehensive treatments of a subject. And this 4-day-old article is a stub. There's one aspect of this subject, for example, that is currently dealt with in this current article in a single sentence, that I know actually occupies an entire book, written by a professor of literature at the University of Illinois and a professor of history at a college in Kyoto. That one sentence alone has scope for massive expansion from reliable sources. Uncle G ( talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
{{ Ethnic stereotypes}} -- Wassermann ( talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. For rationale see talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Completely unverified article full of original research. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Oh, yeah. Duh. ;) deeceevoice ( talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
[See talk page for why these nominations are being merged] travb ( talk) 08:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Expecting that to have been compiled and written up in 4 days by editors, who have simultaneously had to deal with the somewhat hysterical reactions of other editors on several discussion fora, including "I'm insulted by stereotypes!" and "Stereotypes are untrue!" (neither of which are relevant to whether a subject can be covered in an encyclopaedia), in addition to the disruptive tactics of the article's creator (who has explicitly stated the point that xe wants to make using disruption), is quite unrealistic.
Stubs are imperfect and almost by definition not comprehensive treatments of a subject. And this 4-day-old article is a stub. There's one aspect of this subject, for example, that is currently dealt with in this current article in a single sentence, that I know actually occupies an entire book, written by a professor of literature at the University of Illinois and a professor of history at a college in Kyoto. That one sentence alone has scope for massive expansion from reliable sources. Uncle G ( talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply
{{ Ethnic stereotypes}} -- Wassermann ( talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply