304:
of an article are the easiest to fix. Changing the tone of the writing is a little bit more of an editing task, but not insurmountable. When the topic isn't appropriate for a its own article, then the question comes up about whether the information should be placed elsewhere. Otherwise, throwing
224:
could be inserted by editing, but it wouldn't be a large portion of an article. There's nothing to stop you from writing a better, unbiased article about North
Amercian etiquette from a sociological perspective, of course, and it would be a useful supplement or replacement to this. In addition, if
238:
Not being
American, I'm not in a very good position to do this. My problem with the way this information is presented is that the tone seems unencyclopedic to the point of being POV, and it's quite hard to get a sense of how much of this is an accurate reflection of social customs in the U.S. and
239:
Canada, and how much is somebody's prescription. Another problem that I forgot to mention in the nomination is that this article tries to cover both the United States and Canada, but not Mexico, despite its title. I'm not even sure how much of it is pertinent to Canada.
159:
194:(face needs, etc.) at all, and its tone is rather unencyclopedic. I'd like to see an unbiased article written from a sociological perspective, and I don't see any path from this article to that one.
279:
115:
153:
190:
This article consists mostly of a long list of entries saying that it's rude to do this or that. It completely lacks scholarly sources, it doesn't seem to mention
88:
83:
92:
220:
looking for information on what's considered rude within a particular culture, rather than an explanation of the evolution of individual customs. A link to
75:
216:. Etiquette, as with other aspects of culture, is certainly an encyclopedic topic, and people who consult these very general articles actually
174:
141:
17:
79:
135:
373:
328:
309:
294:
268:
248:
229:
203:
57:
319:. I think it needs sources from actual scholars and not just etiquette writers, but it's a worthwhile sociological topic.
351:
388:
131:
36:
71:
63:
181:
367:
290:
120:
387:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
213:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
259:
Whether the article is good or bad, I feel there ought to be an article of some description on the subject.
147:
53:
338:. The fact that an article is bad is not a reason for deletion. This article is a valid spin-off from
286:
264:
355:
324:
167:
343:
240:
195:
225:
you see something that is inaccurate or untrue, you may edit it out without seeking approval.
347:
221:
191:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
49:
260:
244:
199:
320:
306:
226:
109:
339:
212:
I suppose that one could make the same objections to all of the articles in
360:
381:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
105:
101:
97:
166:
280:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
180:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
391:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
274:
278:: This debate has been included in the
305:out the whole thing is a last resort.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
300:I'd add that problems with the
1:
374:02:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
329:20:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
310:13:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
295:00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
269:21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
249:22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
230:21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
204:18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
58:19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
352:etiquette in the Middle East
408:
72:Etiquette in North America
64:Etiquette in North America
384:Please do not modify it.
214:Category:Etiquette lists
32:Please do not modify it.
356:etiquette in Europe
344:etiquette in Japan
44:The result was
348:etiquette in Asia
297:
283:
222:politeness theory
192:politeness theory
399:
386:
370:
363:
284:
185:
184:
170:
123:
113:
95:
34:
407:
406:
402:
401:
400:
398:
397:
396:
395:
389:deletion review
382:
372:
368:
361:
287:Jclemens-public
127:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
405:
403:
394:
393:
377:
376:
366:
332:
331:
313:
312:
298:
254:
253:
252:
251:
233:
232:
188:
187:
124:
121:Afd statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
404:
392:
390:
385:
379:
378:
375:
371:
365:
364:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
314:
311:
308:
303:
299:
296:
292:
288:
281:
277:
273:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
258:
250:
246:
242:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
383:
380:
359:
342:, just like
335:
316:
301:
275:
256:
255:
217:
209:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
45:
43:
31:
28:
154:free images
50:Ron Ritzman
261:AbrahamCat
340:etiquette
321:Roscelese
307:Mandsford
227:Mandsford
369:Contribs
116:View log
358:, etc.
160:WP refs
148:scholar
89:protect
84:history
132:Google
93:delete
302:title
241:Bob A
196:Bob A
175:JSTOR
136:books
118:) •
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
336:Keep
325:talk
317:Keep
291:talk
276:Note
265:talk
257:Keep
245:talk
210:Keep
200:talk
168:FENS
142:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
362:RJC
285:--
218:are
182:TWL
114:– (
354:,
350:,
346:,
327:)
293:)
282:.
267:)
247:)
202:)
162:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
323:(
289:(
263:(
243:(
198:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.