Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:13, 21 December 2024

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

Shortcut

WP:DS/DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination

Examples of yellowface

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

This is a messy case of what should be named List of media featuring yellowface. Like many such lists, it is poorly referenced, and fails WP:NLIST. Even through the list has a 'notes' column, for many - most - entries there is no explanation/commentary why they are included here (nor reference). This is a messy WP:OR. What little can be salvaged here could perhaps be merged to Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater, which is where yellowface redirects too, but I doubt there is much we can use here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a simple Gbooks search shows plenty of sources addressing the topic as a set, therefore meeting WP:NLIST. WP:SPLITLIST also applies. Renaming as suggested would be a good idea; and adding missing sources, of course but this can happen through normal editing. -Mushy Yank. 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 18:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 18:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed it should be renamed, but whatever the name a list of films including yellowface seems like a sensible complement to the main article, and one that's easy to source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden McNeil

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

I can't actually see a reason that McNeil is notable himself. Yes, there are a load of sources mentioning the unpleasant comments that he comes out with, but he simply seems to be someone who has tagged along with other unpleasant characters, and has been noted as such by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conspiracy theories, and Discrimination. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says in the Wikipedia guidelines if there's reliable sources about an individual, that's what determined notability. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another in a long line of far-right nobodies who is only recognized for having a beef with another far-right personality. Does not satisfy WP:N, definitely does not satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's been very little discussion of specific sources, so I've gone ahead and started by making a source assessment table based on sources in the article:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Kansas City Star	This is a WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	This is a reliable WP:NEWSORG	The source is principally about the article subject.	✔ Yes
The Manhattan Mercury	This is an independent daily mainstream newspaper doing its own reporting.	This is a 140-year-old well-established daily newspaper; WP:NEWSORG.	This source is directly covering the article subject in a substantial way, with the whole source principally focused on the article subject.	✔ Yes
Anti-defamation league	Moot as not SIGCOV	Moot as not SIGCOV	He gets name-dropped once, but that's about all the coverage he gets.	✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 1	Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.	why not?	deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM.	✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 2	Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.	Why not?	deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM.	✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 1	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	This coverage is principally about McNeil.	✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 2	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	McNeil is not so much as mentioned by name once.	✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 3	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	There's plenty of coverage of McNeil and Dickerman as a sort of group, but little of McNeil alone. In any case, going to be moot as WP:N notes that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and we already have a contributing SPLC source above.	? Unknown
The Kansas City Star 2	Independent WP:NEWSORG	A WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Seems to give substantial coverage to McNeil and his activities.	✔ Yes
The Daily Dot's "God" blog	Sure?	While WP:DAILYDOT is MREL, but looking more broadly at the God blog archives this looks like an opinionated blog that's just hosted on the platfom.	Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions.	✘ No
BroBible	Sure?	~ I can't find anything in the WP:RSN archives or at WP:NPPSG, but this feel a lot like a WP:DEXERTO-level source	Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions.	~ Partial
Inside Higher Ed	Why not?	WP:NEWSORG	We've got two paragraphs about McNeil that pass the WP:100WT for independent prose, albeit barely.	✔ Yes
The Kansas City Star 3	Independent WP:NEWSORG	WP:NEWSORG	WP:NEWSORG doing their own report principally about the subject and his activities.	✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 4	This is the same url as source 6	This is the same url as source 6	This is the same url as source 6	✔ Yes
MEL Magazine	Sure?	~ RSN archives treat this as a mixed reliability source.	Three paragraphs about McNeil and his activities, passes the WP:100WT.	~ Partial
Mother Jones	Why not?	Per WP:MOTHERJONES, source is WP:GREL.	Five paragraphs are given in the article to coverage of McNeil; this is clearly SIGCOV.	✔ Yes
Vice	Why not?	~ The community doesn't have consensus regarding VICE's reliability.	Seems to provide significant secondary coverage of McNeil and his making allegations against Fuentes.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

What this reveals is that, based on solely sources in the article, McNeil has received WP:SIGCOV from at least the following sources:

The Kansas City Star: 1, 2, 3
The Manhattan Mercury: 1
Southern Poverty Law Center: 1, maybe 2
Mother Jones: 1.

This alone would easily pass WP:SIGCOV and, as there appears to be multiple events covered among these sources, this doesn't look like a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E case. The additional sources that one can google regarding the McNeil-KSU football affair really do drive home that not all of his coverage is about Nick Fuentes or storming the U.S. capitol:

McNeil-KSU football affair additional sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sports Illustrated The Manhattan Mercury Yahoo! News The Sporting News AP 1 and 2 ESPN KC Star USA Today

As such, I think we have an individual here who easily passes WP:GNG, for whom no suitable merge target exists, and I think nom's contention that this is only someone who is covered in the context of Fuentes is plainly incorrect. In light of the breadth of coverage and the deep sourcing, there is nothing reasonable to do here but to keep.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks to Red-tailed hawk for assessing the sources. Looks like GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More about the controversial things said and the fallout than about the individual, from the sources. "Streamer says things, ruffles feathers, than fades away" seems to be the extent of what we have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. Reliable sources like ADL, the Kansas city star, the Manhatten Mercury, Southern poverty law center all cover this individual. This goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. According with Wikipedia's guidelines, Notability isn't determined on what a certain individual is notable for, but if reliable sources cover him. However if it was the opposite, well they cover his falling out with Fuentes, His views, His association with Nick Fuentes, him being held accountable by Kansas State University for an offensive joke, him getting a girlfriend, etc. I don't even know why this is a discussion. His Wikipedia page has been up for about two years with barely anyone saying anything because it's common sense this goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable, this person wasn't notable before that happened. I'd be looking for extensive coverage of them before the event, which we don't seem to have. I've done things as a student and was held accountable, that's not really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b you've might've done bad things as a student, but news sources didn't cover it. Again, Wikipedia's notability policy are if reliable sources cover something, not "this isn't something I think is news worthy or topic worthy". As for "there needs to be extensive coverage of him before the Kansas University incident", why? Why does it matter what the first news source about him said? If multiple reliable sources cover him and different incidents involving him afterwards, that goes with Wikipedia's notability policy. But here, here's a news story covering him before the Kansas University incident. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nicholas-fuentes-america-first-infighting also I saw ESPN cover Jaden McNeil too, multiple reliable sources cover this guy, I'm struggling to understand why this is a discussion. Wikipedia's guidelines is clear as day. Wikipedia's guidelines say nothing about if you think something's news worthy, but if news outlets consider it news worthy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That incident, for what it's worth, has been turned into a academic case study. It's not just that a kid said something inflammatory, it's that the incident was nationally covered and continued to receive attention in academics even after it was out of the news (in addition to the case study, described in a Ph.D. thesis). I think that reducing this to " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable is a gross oversimplification here that misses just how big this was—and also ignores coverage in the context of other events as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given above and on the talk page already. Two newspapers from his area discussing him, and Mother Jones and the SPLC discussing him in the context of someone else, and for an edgy remark he made, do not make him worthy of an entire article. Swinub★ 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swinub as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, ESPN, Yahoo News, USA today, sports illustrated and other huge mainstream sources cover thie guy. It's not just two news papers. And he's not only mentioned in the context of Nick Fuentes and an edgy tweet he made in 2020, as pointed out by me in multiple examples earlier. And as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, he easily passes WP:GNG HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more. Swinub★ 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more... no, that is patently false. SPLC covers this individual applying for and receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds, and Mother Jones doesn't so much as mention that inflammatory Tweet, but does provide significant coverage of this individual. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From what I'm reading above, the firing is notable, I'm not sure the individual is. Could perhaps create an article about the incident itself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b there's numerous reliable sources that cover different incidents regarding Jaden McNeil DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of significant coverage. Look, lots of people, but especially the bad, are famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of us agree it should stay DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments seem evenly divided between Delete and Keep. The existence of RS coverage is not in doubt but some editors argue that it isn't SIGCOV enough to establish notability. Editors are warned not to BLUDGEON this discussion and contest every opinion they disagree with.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think we're done here. Looks like the opposers have given up HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Swinub★ 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sw 36914 You got called out for lying in this AfD discussion. And keep trying to get me banned by saying I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, without any proof. What makes you think that's gonna work? @Liz I think we're done here. 100% of the people are not going to agree to keep the page, but an administrator gave reasons why the page should stay and showed examples on how it goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. 100% are not going to agree, but if most people do, we should end the discussion. Being here forever is pointless. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misread his reply and noticed my error a day later, as I'm not paying too close attention to this page. I apologize for the mistake, but it was not intentional. As for us "being done here," we're not; let other people give their input. You've given yours already. Swinub★ 04:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done here HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HumansRightsIsCool, this might be a surprise if you haven't participated in many AFDs before but the participants can't declare that a discussion is over and should be closed. An AFD discussion is closed when a closer sees that a consensus has been reached or decides, after several relistings, that no consensus is possible. In situations like this discussion, this is likely to happen if a few more editors participate in this discussion and offer their arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been days since a new editor sent a message here. Lots of editors were showing up, but it stopped once everyone kinda realized this discussion is pointless. administrators like Red-tailed hawk gave examples on how McNeil's page goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, considering how multiple reliable sources cover different incidents involving Jaden McNeil. Swinub is never going to agree the page should stay, no matter how many examples you give of this Wikipedia article going with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Are we supposed to stay here for 3 years? Someone get a AdF closer to decide the fate of the article, not everyone's gonna agree. No matter what. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz explained how this works, demanding someone come in and give you satisfaction is not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdF? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

think he meant Afd - articles for deletion 2603:8080:600:87B:D2F5:7B10:A18C:526E (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Respectfully, I do have to take issue with the relisting comment. The opposition to the notability here, as articulated by Swinub and Oaktree b, is that the sort of stuff that he has been covered for does not make him worth an article—not that WP:SIGCOV isn't met. It's essentially a set of (attempted) WP:IAR deletion !votes. And neither The Hand That Feeds You nor Black Kite have attempted to do a source-by-source analysis, and neither of them has made a substantial comment about notability after the source assessment table was dropped.

That is in marked contrast to my keep !vote, which identified specific sources and described how each of them specifically contribute towards meeting the WP:GNG. If individuals don't believe that this person meets the WP:GNG, they are free to argue so. But I would very much like to see what they think is wrong about the source assessment table, and I'm quite saddened that nobody has articulated that here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm feeling involved here so I'll just bow out of this AFD discussion and let another closer handle this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Discrimination==
 <!-- New AfDs should be add to the top of the list, directly below this line -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Russian_violence_in_Chechnya_(1991–1994)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Examples_of_yellowface}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Islamophobic incidents}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaden McNeil}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)}}
 ==Discrimination Proposed deletions==