Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Discrimination. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Discrimination|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Discrimination. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Discrimination

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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taco trucks on every corner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A catchphrase from a presidential campaign spokesperson. WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. It's too soon to know if this statement is going to be notable, as it now fades from the current news cycle after having been a "nine day wonder." The essential, missing element is "enduring notability." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG easily with significant coverage in numerous independent reliable sources. But that is not enough. Passing GNG only means it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. On this topic we absolutely should also consider WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, and base our decision on existing coverage in reliable sources. And after much review of the voluminous existing coverage, my conclusion is that the topic passes WP:EVENT. The coverage of how the event sparked the creation of the Guac The Vote campaign from the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was the 'final straw' that made me decide to move this article into mainspace. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Re-draftify. News coverage persists to this very day (e.g. [1], non-UTC time). It still may be too soon to deduce whether or not this may have lasting significance, or if it will end up being a WP:NOTNEWS situation. A great deal of sources have covered the topic, so it does meet WP:GNG. Including re-draftify as an option in my !vote because this was moved from draft to main namespace on 12 September 2016 (diff), perhaps prematurely. Another option is to selectively merge to another article, such as Discrimination in the United States § Discrimination against immigrants (obviously topically related), or perhaps United States presidential election, 2016, or perhaps to both. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep taco trucks memes on every wiki. Solid references. Ask me in 10 years if it has "enduring notability." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG and, per 1Wiki8, WP:EVENT as well. Non-trivial coverage in reliable media sources has been persistent and voluminous.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this poorly written article, on the grounds that sourcing is massive, and the phrase has formed a significant part of the campaign. New sources include: "Samantha Bee Uncovered the Shady History of the 'Taco Trucks on Every Corner' Guy," Esquire (magazine) [2]; "Latino group hopes to troll Trump with taco trucks on Election Day," CNN [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The topic continues to receive coverage up to this very day: [4] (non-UTC time). Seems quite likely to have enduring notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable event in this election cycle. it will fade in immediate relevance, but thats not important for it to stay. it is notable NOW.Mercurywoodrose (talk)

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.

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 redirect to History of the Jews in South Korea as a compromise solution that tries to capture the arguments and concerns presented. The last half of the article discusses a single business dispute. The first half is more relevant, but there is a severe lack of structure with the different facts being presented in a disjoint fashion. Those problems are in theory surmountable, and it's possible that a separate article may be written. However the concerns about the relevancy of the current contents are serious enough that removing the article for the time being is arguably the best option. The history of the article will not be deleted and so may be accessed in case anybody wants to work with it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in South Korea

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article makes no sense. Most of the content does not refer to the topic. More than half of the article is a business dispute between Samsung and Paul Singer. Other than that, the article lists curiosities and examples that do not directly refer to antisemitism. The "history" part starts with a bar named "Gestapo". However, although one of the main agenda of Nazi Germany became the Jewish genocide, naming a bar "Gestapo" is not directly antisemitism. I guess it is known that in Korea, China, Japan and India, many bars refer to Hitler and the Nazis. So sad it is, this shows admiration for Nazi Germany but is not directly linked to antisemitism. Someone would have to provide a scholarly source that see this connection. Making this connection of wikipedia without source is original research. It could be that the people that named the bar do not even know about Holocaust. Then, the article lists at the end of the section two "K-pop scandals". Both do not refer to antisemitism. However, the second refers to unrespectful behaviour. Also, the last sentence in the lead states South Korea, but if you look at the source, it refers to North Korea. But this is only a minor problem. Cause, I also dispute the weight of the article. The important information is already in the article History of the Jews in South Korea. Christian140 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to History of the Jews in South Korea. This would create a more balanced article with information on both the positive and negative views of South Koreans toward Jews. Info on the Samsung thing should be much reduced. Unrelated stuff, the Hitler bars and North Korean pictures of capitalists looking "Jewish" to outsiders, should be removed. There should be an article about the Singer/Samsung thing, and also the existing History of the Jews in South Korea, but this article is really just minor incidents thrown together by original research.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but extensively re-write. Delete, per Christian140's nomination and thoughtful argument below. [Old comment follows.] While this article does have the whiff of original research about it, some of the article's reliable sources (such as this article in the Diplomat and this Time magazine piece) do assert that there's a significant strain of anti-Semitism in Korea. This is definitely a topic of encyclopedic interest, but the article clearly needs a lot of help. A Train^talk 15:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Times article is also about a bar and is not refering to antisemitism. The article just shows that there is some fascination of Nazi symbolism by some people in Korea and the author states that it seems for him that Koreans "hate" Japanese für WWII, but still allow the use of Nazi symbols. So, the author derives the assumption that Koreans lack empathy for Jews. The article also explicitly states: "Nor does Korea, with no Jewish community to speak of, have an anti-Semitic streak." The Diplomat links just reports about a survey of global anti-semitism that can be directly sourced: http://global100.adl.org/#country/south-korea/2014. This is notable as WP:YESPOV. Like with any index, there are limitations and criticism. However, this would be notable in an article about the index. To find out if there is really anti-semitism in Korea, some research is needed, and if there is, it probably had not been published in English (see Google scholar). It is not very likely that much research had been done considering the lack of Jews in Korea and the lack of exposure during history. Looking at the design of the anti-semitism index, one could also conclude that Koreans are susceptible for conspiracy theories since all the question are more about the "anti Jewish conspiracy theories". This is all up for future research. I wrote this in small letters since it should not be considered in this discussion, these are just some thoughts on limitations of the index and possible future research if I was a sociologist specializing on conspiracy theories, anti-semitism and the Korean society. --Christian140 (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Christian. There are some statistics, but we lack reliable sources. Well, the Diplomat is a decent source, but can we build an encyclopedic articles on one or two newspieces, with no scholarship to speak of, given the controversial subject? A merge may be better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, man -- that is an exceptional bit of argumentation from @Christian140: and I find myself utterly swayed by it. I agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus below that the Samsung incident alone is probably notable enough for its own article, but this article as it stands probably cannot remain in its present form. Changed my position above. A Train^talk 07:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no claim that South Korean antisemitism ever directly harmed any person. Just commenting. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a legitimate X in Y article (cf. WP:NOTCASE) that meets WP:GNG. There are many RS items (such as the Diplomat article above) that make notice of the unusually high rate of antisemitic sentiment in South Korea. Any irrelevant material, of course, should be removed from the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes the case that this is an appropriate standalone topic, and the sourcing provided surpasses the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep BUT delete most contents OR leaning merge to History of the Jews in South Korea. As with many similar article, most of it is off-topic and sourced to news, in essence "anti-semitism events in Korea as documented by some random newspaper articles". This all should go, together with the Samsung incident, which could perhaps be notable on its own, but is not very relevant to this topic. However, the sole saving grace of this article comes from one sentence about " a survey by the Anti-Defamation League" which I think should be kept; there are likely few other rankings that could be added. A 2008 survey of attitudes towards religion has data on Korea ([5]), but frankly, this is about attitudes, not antisemitism. But, seriously, one sentence... this probably should be merged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a ramble of soapboxing mixed poorly with coatracking of the Samsung controversy. "There's no there there." Bearian (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cut down to avoid the soapboxing and coatracking issues. Most of the content could be merged to the pages of the parties involved (bands, singers, companies, businessman). The topic itself is relevant but how it's presented is unbalanced. There is some decent material to work off of though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be OR synthesis, with the selected material often having no actual relevance to the subject. The "Samsung business dispute with Paul Singer" content might better belong in another article, perhaps at Paul Singer (businessman) where content that covers several paragraphs here merits just three sentences. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note The article references a public opinion survey. People who don't have strong opinions tend to answer "yes" to survey questions. So you get a different picture if the question were to be "Do you think Jews are over represented in some field?" than if you were to ask "Do you think Jews face unfair discrimination in the same field?" Borock (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of the Jews in South Korea. Not enough evidence that South Korean antisemitism is a notable topic. In most of today's world people are free to have any opinion they want on any topic. The fact that a few South Koreans have expressed negative views on Jewish people does not seem notable. In fact you could probably find a few anti-South Korean statements by Jews, and I hope we will not have an article based on that.Borock (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most people here find that the survey of the ADL is relevant, however, there are problems with the design. I put this information in the article History of the Jews in South Korea. So, I added the survey result and there is one specific article of a journalist who investigated about anti-semitism in Korea because of the survey and found no signs of anti-semitism. In the article, there is also a statement of the head of the ADL saying that there are some flaws since cultural norms in Korea affected the responses. You can also find more criticism online about the design, like that the sample is too low and that you cannot prove anti-semitism by those questions. But this is more relevant for the article about the survey or for Anti-Defamation_League#Criticism. --Christian140 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article sources barely discuss antisemitism if at all. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2016 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Yadav

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article does not appear to meet the notability criteria. The article was created and virtually exclusively edited by Sanjay169, who is the self-proclaimed subject of the article, disregarding Wikipedia:Autobiography. The article was proposed for deletion by Grko3, but the autobiographer objected, adding some links to a couple of blogs (which do not appear to meet the reliable source criteria) as "references." The page has previously been deleted twice (by Explicit and Liz, respectively). The current article history is a bit confusing, because the article was repeatedly overwritten by Sanjayshivalak (a.k.a. 1.39.51.200 a.k.a. Er.sanjay yadav), another vanity editor with the same name who would like the article to be about him instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nominator. Vanity page for subject lacking in significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator, the author is the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badnaam (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, author is subject violating autobiography guidelines. Fieari (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:52, 12 September 2016 (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.

Discrimination Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion: