Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian fetish

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 (early close). gren グレン 22:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article on "Asian fetish"ism? Please. Blatant racism, and does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Riscybusiness 03:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I read over the article, and while it needs to be normalized and reference scholarly debate on the issue, I don't see this article as being racist. An article on this topic needs to exist, perhaps with a different name, because there is at least a widespread perception of the racist objectification of asian women. If this article is deleted, it will neccessarily be created again, and at least a portion of it is cited and well written. Keep and improve citation would be my vote at this point. I'm curious- what do you think is racist or outside of NPOV in this article?Lotusduck 03:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move NPOV dispute withstanding this is verifiable so shouldn't be deleted. We don't delete stuff just because we don't like what it says. The title might be changed though. Suggestions? - FrancisTyers 03:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Excellent article. Term gets 500,000 googles. See nigger or kike for other examples. -- JJay 04:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I myself would be the subject of a purported "Asian fetish" but there is no such thing. A fetish refers to an inanimate object, such as clothing, that is the source of erotic feelings. By claiming that an Asian fetish exists, the author of this article is dehumanizing people from those countries. He provides a number of citations to back up his theory, but it still amounts to a neologism and original research. Endomion 04:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI suggest reading up some more on sexual fetishism. A "fetish" is indeed an inanimate object; however "sexual fetishism" is not a mere sum of the two parts, but has its own distinct meaning. There are plenty of sexual fetishes that are not inanimate objects. Say, there's the amputee fetish, in which people are attracted to a specific mutilated body part; an asian fetish is exactly the same, where people are attracted to specific types of body parts, i.e. those that make asians look distinct from other races. Flyboy Will 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I respect your point of view Endomion, but the term seems to be in use even among Asian writers [1] -- JJay 04:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did you read that article you linked? Later Sigmund Freud appropriated the concept to describe a form of paraphilia where the object of affection is an inanimate object or a specific part of a person; see sexual fetish. - FrancisTyers 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, comment some sources are probably overrepresented, I don't think there's been a phenomenon of distaste for the interracial relationship in Harry Potter, but you are antagonizing the issue by calling multiple editors that have overloaded this article "the author". To delete this article is to say that A. There is no sexual stereotyping of asians in American culture or media, B. There is no exploitation or harrassment of Asians because of sexual stereotypes and C. There is no controversy about perversion in men who either seek out or fantacise about Asian women. This article deals with this issue well, and if it is deleted, it will be created again- perhaps with a less careful analyzation of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusduck (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 December 2005

• Keep. This is a legitimate, notable topic, and the article is well written NPOV with reputable sources. The article covers the controversial aspects of this pretty well by the way. Flyboy Will 04:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Riscybusiness' contributions - FrancisTyers 04:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, he's started his first debate. -- JJay 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Good heavens, incredibly notable, common sexual fetish, often a source of Asian pride. Xoloz 04:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NeoJustin 05:29, December 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, my wife being proof of my having same. BD2412 T 05:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Lucky man :) Xoloz 19:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are a bazillion fetishes documented on Wikipedia, and this one is pretty common. -- MisterHand 06:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Blatant racism says who? I'm asian, I find the article informative and interesting. I am not offended, just like I am not offended by others calling me "oriental". =) Kudos for caring, however! Kareeser|^Talk! 07:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, but let's have an RfC to sort everything out.--Wasabe3543 07:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, I feel that the topic is real, but the scholarship of this article is dubious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.123.163 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 December 2005
• Keep--Aleron235 16:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article contains not one word about actual love and intermarriage. This is a startling omission. Such a union exists within my extended family. By characterizing all such relationships as fetishism this article perpetuates a stereotype. Durova 18:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about fetishism, not about love and intermarriage. I don't think that the article charactarizes anything but the debate on the Asian sexual fetish. If the article cited instances as being true cultural understanding not fantasies based on some quintessential hollywood sexy Asian, if it pointed out a couple as being in love and not obsessed with how Asian women are different in bed, then it would not be neutral point of veiw. I do believe the article implies that any man who dates or marries an Asian is accused of being a fetishist, of being shallow and living out a racist fantasy. I'mnot sure how this should be expanded upon Lotusduck 19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as such, the article needs to acknowledge that not all such relationships constitute fetishism. This need not be a long statement, but the article is POV by its omission. Durova 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've been married to a Japanese lady for 10 years now. Submissive and what again? HA, HA, HA! - no. I liked the article. I thought it was pretty much on the money.
• Strong keep. A subject generating this much controversy is definitely worth including here. It's a hotly debated topic in race relations today. --Idont Havaname 21:29, 25 December 2005 (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.