Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of white people

[edit]
Please read the entire AFD before commenting. An editor has suggested changing to an older version. The article may change radically in the middle of this AFD. 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Reverted to August 2008 version and reopened for discussion 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a completely new version as of January 5. 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Stereotypes of white people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

On the heels of the Stereotypes of Jews AFD, I'm nominating this for deletion. Highly negative and unsourced. Technically speedyable under G10 (white people are an entity). Sceptre (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Admin comment: I reverted this to an older version. The version originally nominated was a clear G10 violation. This version might be salvagable. But I think it still needs to be discussed. Hats off to Davidwr for identifying a viable version.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I deleted this article per G4, as this version is from August 27. On August 28, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stereotypes_of_whites was put up for AFD. That is a different article with a different history. I am going to relist this so that the August 27th discussion can be considered. The one initially nomed was a clear G10-Attack Page.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Comments below this line refer to the restored August 2008 version and subsequent changes. 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • RE: Relisted version: Keep. First, to reply to Dlohcierekim, yes, only white people edit WP - jk. Second, the current version makes an attempt at verifying information with reliable citations, and the article's pattern gives editors something to work from. The RS in this article prove the topic's notability. • Freechild'sup? 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Hi Freechild, would you be able to examine my evaluation of the Reliable Sources which you mention in your comment? They are not, in fact, reliable (various editorials, one group which posits to defend "endangered" white people, etc). The article further contains copyright violations. I do not find that the current article's state comes even remotely close to meeting the community's standard for inclusion. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lazulilasher, thanks for asking me directly - I appreciate that. However, and in response to your section below as well, the topic itself is notable, as a quick scan of Google Books shows at least 63 different mentions of "stereotypes of white people." The article needs work, but the topic has a place simply on the basis of notability. The current format of the article is not flawless; it merely provides something to work from. However, simply because we disagree with the topic does not mean it can't be included; it means that if we're committed to WP as a project we must hold the topic to a high personal standard. In this way we can maintain the validity and ensure the relevance of WP as a whole. That's my thought on this. • Freechild'sup? 05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stereotypes#White_stereotypes so there is something to merge and permanent-protect. As formatted this is a terrible article but some of the referenced material is usable as a section of the suggested target. In the alternative, userfy to my page so I can merge it later, just be prepared for a huge talk-page edit for GFDL compliance. OK with deleting edit history from 18:56, 14 September 2008 to 01:22, 4 January 2009 inclusive as speedy-deletable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC) remove 2nd !vote, besides, I changed my mind to keep the Jan 5/6 rewrite, see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Hats off to Freechild, Good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) *Strong Delete Note, my comments here were moved from above, as they pertain to the relisted (currently in question) version of the article. Basically, the article is completely unencyclopedic with no assertion of notability to reliable, third party sources. Notability may be established within the rubric of "White People" or "stereotypes"; but they are not indepedently established as notable, standalone topics. Comments: [reply]

    • Internal logical inconsistency: "Whites are stereotyped as racists. In general whites were stereotyped with positive traits" Since when is racism a positive trait? And what are positive traits? Too pov-ish, sorry.
    • Can we find a reliable, peer-reviewed journal which evaluates the pervasiveness of the white people can't dance stereotype? Is this an overwhelming stereotype, or is it Amero-centric? I am uncomfortable with citing comedian Eddie Murpy as our source (again, we are an encyclopedia).
    • The source "Resistingdefamation.org", which is used 7 times appears to be a website dedicated to "provid[ing] the basis for lawsuits by degraded, endangered, and disparaged white americans". Hardly NPOV (um...endangered? White People are endangered?)
    • That version cites this as a reliable source concerning the storage of oxygen in Europeans and Kenyans. I would feel much more comfortable if we could actually cite the medical journal itself. The cited website appears to be devoted to "Taboo" topics. Does not, IMO, pass as a reliable source.
    • NPOV: Again, I am very concerned about POV in these types of articles. When one writes "stereoptype", what does that mean? And according to whom? Is there a balance?
    • Copyright violations: The abstract from the Basic and Applied Social Psychology article regarding the stereoptype is cut and paste directly from the source and not noted as a quotation (I believe this fails our Fair Use rationale for text). Compare this with the August Revision's text (I added this comment after my initial post to the AfD Lazulilasher (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Unreliable sources: The first source, cited 5 times in the article, appears to link here. This is the "Essay" section of the retirethechief.org website. Hardly a reliable source. (again, I added this comment after the one above, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I would, perhaps, support inclusion of stereotypes of white people in the actual White People article (as long as they are assiduously sourced). This may help defend the text degrade again into an un-encyclopedic mess (again: Jungle Fever? Neurotic?). Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a source for the African American stereotype of white people that actually gives a proper description of who employs it, explains how it originated, and even relates it to White Men Can't Jump (meaning that we can include that connection in Wikipedia without it being original research):
      • David K. Shipler (1997). A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America. Knopf. p. 267. ISBN 9780394589756.
    • Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Davidwr and expand. You'd think this was allegations of apartheid, given the WP:POINT-making afoot. — CharlotteWebb 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand While this isn't the best article, more of a stub, I can see the value of the topic. Pstanton 06:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
  • Note. I have rewritten the article to prove its notability. • Freechild'sup? 06:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stereotypes are notable.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge): This is looking far better then before! I would be happy for this text to be kept and expanded. I am a bit concerned about the overlap with stereotype, which has a large section on white stereotypes (although most of it is actually about national stereotypes which could just as easily apply to non-white people of the nationalities covered). Either this article could be merged there or the coverage of white stereotypes in stereotype could be merged here. The advantage of consolidation is that it is only one article to monitor for vandalism. The advantage of a separate article is that it allows for a more detailed article and prevents the main article getting too big. Given that this article now has a decent base to expand from, I think it makes sense to keep it. A bit of merging to avoid duplication would also make sense. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep And restore some of the negative material if it can be sourced. Apparently this article has been subjected to radical revision from one version to another. Content that can be reliably sourced from both versions needs to be added to expand the article. Deletion is not the solution for extreme POV problems or a lack of balance. As a version with citations existed, it has been rightly restored. The more negative material, which led to this being tagged for G10, should be added only when sources are located and added to the article. Wholesale removal of cited material and its replacement with uncited material should be avoided. Incremental growth of the article, with care to maintain balance and adherence to reliable sourcing, should see it become substantial and well written. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It seems to me that you didn't read my note above. I rewrote the article within the last 12 hours and eliminated the poorly-sourced material, just like would be done to any controversial topic. The version with citations had very poor citations, and for that reason it is not prudent to restore any of that information. I parsed what I could from the restored information, and now the article can move forward. • Freechild'sup? 15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as with stereotypes of Jews, unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed, the general cultural history and impact should be generally discussed in stereotype, and the sourced stuff that's worth saving should go to Stereotypes#White stereotypes though I'm at loss of where to merge the white-specific stuff. Did anyone know there's an entire template of these articles? {{ethnic stereotypes}} WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey all, I have run a toolserver query on "Stereotypes of X". The results of the query are about 15 different articles that follow the same "pattern". You can find the list at [3]. I hope this sparks further discussion on what to do with all 15 of them, they are likely to all suffer the same possible faults, and should be monitored if they are allowed to remain. —— nixeagle 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE READ. I have rewritten this article, and it appears editors commenting here have not read the current version. As a courtesy to the efforts of all editors involved in this discussion, please read the current before commenting. • Freechild'sup? 05:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And expand, not sure what the argument is for deleting the current version. Raitchison (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stereotypes_of_white_people&oldid=1171459343"