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 no consensus/keep. While the people voting for delete had a 68% simple majority, I fail to see how this page could be considered so unsalveagable as to warrant deletion. The page has valid references, and appears to be attempting to summarize that research, rather than just being plain original research. Deserves a cleanup and/or an expert tag, and a possible rename, but not a delete. Turnstep 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attractiveness, Self-Image and Body-Type Preferences among Whites and African Americans[edit]

Non-notable and usesessly specific article subject. This article is non-encyclopedic content Berger 00:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencycopedic. dbtfz^talk 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen the "good" version and I stand by my opinion. This might make a good essay, but it's just not encyclopedic. dbtfz^talk 02:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after Merge to Physical_attractiveness.Bridesmill 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Don't merge or redirect, nothing is salvagable from the page as is (the resources used could be from anywhere). Per WP:OR--Jersey Devil 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Look at the history. The version that has been tagged for deletion is the result of massive vandalism. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination and revert to the last good version [1] of 22:11, April 12, 2006, and then reconsiders the AfD issue. Lambiam^Talk 02:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, thank you for bringing that up. But I still think is should be deleted per WP:OR.--Jersey Devil 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good call Lambian, decent article with references. Not my cup of tea, but it's academic research. TeKE 02:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not original research; the article summarizes academic studies performed by others in a neutral way. I don't understand what makes it "just not encyclopedic". I hear what you say and I think it is "just not an argument". Lambiam^Talk 02:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yes it lists "resources" which can be from anywhere. Simply putting down a name and a title of an article without where the article was published does not make a resource verifiable and thus this is OR. See I can do it as well Jersey Devil PhD. "Wikipolitics: Islam, POV forks, and Systematic Keep Votes"--Jersey Devil 03:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point, and I agree this this is probably a paper someone wrote. I think with cleanup by people who know psychology, it can be turned from a paper into an article. I'd like to see it around for sixty days to give a chance for cleanup, because the subject has merit per Not a paper encyclopedia and the other psychological relation articles. I'm not a fan of the article as is, but I see no reason to delete. TeKE 03:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some content in this article may be suitable for merging into other existing articles, but unless it is truly encyclopedic to have an article devoted solely to attractiveness, self-image and body-type preferences among JUST whites AND African Americans, this article should be deleted I believe. I mean, should we also have an article called "Attractiveness, Self-Image and Body-Type Preferences among Asians and Pacific Islanders"? I know, a little exagerated, but I think you get my point. I just don't think its encyclopedic to have an article for a non-notable study done on a non-notable subject. --Berger 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the good explaination. I personally disagree because of the disparity of interracial relations due to this preference. I'm still staying by keep, but you response is convincing and I have no problem with consensus here. TeKE 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point as well TeKE. However, when an article is questionable, I usually like to air on the side of keeping Wikipedia clean and thus deletion. --Jake11 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's my philosophy too, most of my voting history shows. As I said, I'm not a fan of the article but I do think this is rather quick for deletion, because it could be cleaned up. I'm not the person to do it, I'm no expert. This RfD is a bit hasty to me is all. TeKE 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Jersey Devil's unverifiability complaint: It is not hard to find verifiable versions of most references – it took me only seconds. I added the completions. Lambiam^Talk 10:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is this, Wikipolitan Magazine? Far from encyclopedic. --Craw Returns 02:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-encylopedic. DarthVader 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & unencyclopedic Nortelrye 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR, unencyclopedic, and absolutely too subjective to be useful. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with physical attractiveness. --Knucmo2 10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:OR, non-encyclopedic essay. -- RexNL 14:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, barely referenced, subjective, ne essay Deizio 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not OR, as explained above. Also, if it's so NN, why have several academic studies been done on the subject? Still, it could use a cleanup and possibly a new title that doesn't limit it to "Whites and African Americans." Doctor Whom 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Eusebeus 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic. I've seen the "good" version myself, and this is plainly original research. Spice it up and it might make a good Cosmo article, keep the tone and it'll do for any number of academic journals, but. RGTraynor 18:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An article on this subject is encyclopaedic. Needs cleanup and moving to a more succinct title. David | Talk 18:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think I saw something like this in one of the magazines on the checkout line at Wal-Mart. It may be suitable for an episode of Oprah, but not an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Better than I thought it would be.--God Ω War 06:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & revert to a good version. JeffBurdges 20:41, 17 April 2006 (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.