Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gene93k (talk | contribs) at 04:42, 30 June 2015 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discrimination_in_education (FWDS)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Discrimination

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in education

Discrimination in education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is hopelessly WP:POV at this point as it is a product of WP:ADVOCACY related to SEDAI - an organization/movement that fights discrimination against Iranian students. WP:TNT for now. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks pretty good to me in its current state. Initial edits are irrelevant. @Alec Station: did some work on it and added Australia. It's more of a stub class article and needs more content, but there's no reason to delete it. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 10:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly problematic article. Being used to push a POV, it's basically a WP:Essay. There's also the issue of links to many non-existent articles. The article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started the section for Australia and made some edits. I do not think it is an essay but an article about a VERY important subject. It needs to be expanded not deletedAlec Station (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Education is a very broad topic, discrimination is too, and the two have so many ways to intersect that this article can't be anything but a more or less random selection of individual problems, cases and controversies. This is better covered in the articles about each country's educational system, or for any international topics in Education.  Sandstein  10:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Split or Rename - As noted above, this article's current scope is too broad, but the subject of discrimination in education is notable in its own right and shouldn't only be covered in national-level education system articles. It seems like there are three primary types of discrimination covered: Race, sex, and disability. Sex differences in education covers one, but the other two are folded into much broader topic articles (at least as far as I've seen). That there are so many sources about each of them in particular (not just racial/disability discrimination, but discrimination in education), suggests to me it would be best to cover them in their own articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:48, 29 July 2015 (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.
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 delete. slakr\ talk / 11:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in education in Norway

Discrimination in education in Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article (and the other parts of its walled garden: Discrimination in education and Hamideh Kaffash), seem to be part of a campaign that Sedai2014 (talk · contribs) is involved in. See this version of the user page, and also this Facebook page.

The core case is an ongoing trial between Norwegian Police Security Service and the student/researcher Kaffash. NPSS fears that Kaffash and other Iranian students might acquire "knowledge potentially usable in development of mass destruction weapons". One might discuss whether this is a good case, but it is an ongoing trial. It is therefore highly inappropriate to present the case in Wikipedia as a matter of "discrimination in education", since this is the position of one of the parties in the trial.

The article Discrimination in education should also be considered for deletion. This is a relevant subject for an article, but the current content is highly biased with its overweight on iranian students. Orland (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Orland:This is not accurate. The discrimination in education in Norway is not limited to the trial between Kaffash and NPSS. It is a bigger picture including university admission denial, visa issuance and resident permit renewal refusal over the fear of sensitive technology transfer. Are you aware that the Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud CONFIRMED one of the cases of admission refusal as unlawful discrimination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedai2014 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 June 2015‎

Being part or not being part of the campaign is not a good reason for deleting an article in my view. As I discussed in talk one concrete example of education discrimination in Norway is referenced in the article where one student is not permitted to HBV due to her nationality according to the Norwegian Anti-discriminatory Ombud. At this stage I suggest modifying the title rather than deleting the whole article.Hkhaledi (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Orland:Being a Norwegian I would understand that you do not like to see this article in Wikipedia. But deleting this article will not remove the dirt. It is not only the view of Iranian students but many Norwegian organization also protested the practice and spoke out against that.WorldPeaceLove (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some very predictable responses to this deletion proposal. The first one is that WorldPeaceLove (talk · contribs), Educationinpeace (talk · contribs) and Hkhaledi (talk · contribs) supports the article. These three, together with Sedai2014 (talk · contribs) are all new accounts, that seem to have been established to work with this/these articles. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Sedai2014.
The second one is the allegation that is a case of pronorwegian patriotism from my side. It is not. As i said in my opening, one might discuss whether or not NPSS has a good case, but this article (and the structure of the other articles) is based on the viewpoints of one side in a trial, that is as far from Neutral point of view as it is possible to get. --Orland (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the article. It should be kept. Few improvements can enrich the existing content.WorldPeaceLove (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian organizations protesting the discriminatory practice
Discrimination or not

Academic environment in Norway generally believes that the way Iranian students are treated is discriminatory. Here are few examples:

Norwegian University of Science and Technology appealed the resident permit rejection decision.

Prof. Jostein Mårdalen and also May-Britt Moser explicitly disagreed with the practice.Educationinpeace (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible that Kaffash's case has got support. It is good for her, and interesting for the public debate on this question. But the support is still supporting one side in an ongoing trial. Bw --Orland (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the article as it can simply be reworked to be NPOV. Weegeerunner chat it up 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also support keeping the article, although it needs substantial revision. A key problem is that the opposing viewpoint isn't public, the case rests entirely on secret evidence, as none of the publically discussable facts of the matter point to anything other than it being a discrimination case. The mere fact that the case rests on secret evidence makes the existence of the article warranted. Those are just facts, whether we like them or not. Also note that the Iranians side of the case is verifiable, PST's side of the case is not. Now, the weak part of the present article is that it emphasizes the ongoing trail, which makes the article less encyclopedic. However, Wikipedia has always had unfinished content, and sometimes, one side the case must be brought forward so that opposing viewpoints are tickled into improving NPOV. This happens all over Wikipedia every day. I say, let the edit wars erupt, but deletion is inappropriate! ;-) BTW, I'm Norwegian, and I've been editing a bit on Wikipedia since it was founded, and I was an editor of the predecessor Nupedia too. Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

I also support keeping the article. Orland (talk · contribs)'s biased approach to this article is very clear due to her/his nationality. The biased approach resulted in deleting Norwegian version of the article without discussion. As can be seen, Orland (talk · contribs)'s reasoning has nothing to do with the content of the article and references mentioned here. As said before deleting the article is inappropriate and it should be improved by editing. Educationinpeace (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Educationinpeace says, I havn't discussed the content, because this time it's the scope and concept of the article that is the problem. Anyone can contest my deletion on no:wp; so far noone has done it. --Orland (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:@Orland: I just noticed that you have reported some accounts active in this discussion to be closed. Your reason is that these accounts are quite new and have only shown interest in this debate. I can understand your frustration on pushing your personal opinion  and all your endeavors deleting this article from Wikipedia, but the accounts reported by you have not violated any Wikipedia rules. Please respect the rules and regulations as it is expected from an old user like you. More than that, please be aware that there are at least three old users who have supported  keeping the article with major or minor revision. Having known that the Norwegian translation of this article was immediately deleted by you without any further discussion or TALK shows a lot about your attitude and pushing your personal opinion on this topic. Hkhaledi (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkhaledi:. I don't think that I have suggested any accounts to be closed. Are you confusing me with Nicky mathew? But I am not impressed by new accounts advocating their own article and campaign. Bw --Orland (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I cannot see that the majority of this article has anything to do with discrimination, and therefor it should be drastically cut down or simply deleted. There is a section about the attempt to introduce tuition fees for foreign students. Higher education in Norway is paid for by the taxpayers of Norway. Most universities of the world require some kind of tuition fee, why should introduction of such a feed in Norway be considered discrimination? There are a lot of grants which a worthy student can apply to for help with the tuition, or take up a loan - which many have to do - to cover tuition and other expenses related to his/her education. No person have a right to be educated in Norway. If Norway consider the person a security risk because of country of origin, then that is a security issue, not discrimination. Norway as a sovereign nation has the right to allow and refuse people access to the Kingdom of Norway. --J. P. Fagerback (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a sudden introduction of a tuition fee for foreign students in a society that "free education" is a principle I agree that it is debatable if it is discriminatory or not.
But for the case of Iranian students (and few other nationals) there is no doubt that some students are discriminated, it is just a question if the discrimination is "legal" or "illegal". It is not only about visa, for the case of Mahtab Emami who already migrated to Norway, she was refused to an admission from HBV university college due to her national origin. Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud (LDO) announced it as "illegal ethnic discrimination":
Sunniva Ørstavik from the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombudsman believes that the rejection case is an ethnic discrimination, and thus unlawful
So as you see it is not only for those who want to enter Norway, it is also for those who have already been to Norway. Hamideh Kaffash and many other students were also working in Norway for a year or so, so it is not a question of sovereignty of Norway to accept/deny visa application, it is about the responsibility to have a justification for a country while depriving people from education and-or expelling them from the country.Sedai2014 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuition fee for foreign students is obligatory in many countries (Sweden and Denmark also recently did the same, and usually Scandinavian countries follow the similar rules). This is not a discrimination but only a tax policy in different countries. On the other hand, there are many Iranian students in Norway who study in different fields, then there is no systematic discrimination against Iranian in Norway. This article and Hamideh Kaffash should be deleted. Arne-Barack (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way the Norwegian government wanted to introduce tuition fee was severely criticized and disliked by many in Norway and you know that the plan was withdrawn by the government under the public pressure at the end. This is the difference between US or UK and Norway where free education is considered statutory. But as I said earlier, it is debatable if skolepenger stuff is discriminatory or not.
For the case of Iranians students, it is true that not all the Iranian students are yet expelled from Norway and deprived from education. But those who underwent these conditions, were treated differently due to their nationality. I refer you to this article again where LDO clearly stated unlawful ethnic discrimination.Sedai2014 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching the systematic education discrimination, not only against Iranians but also against Chinese and Syrians, in Norway in the couple of past months. The right hand government of Norway, in an attempt to reduce the number of foreigners in Norway, has used security police to stop getting students from abroad. And perhaps Iran with its long list of sanctions is the easiest target. The attempt by the Norwegian government to put tuition fee for foreign students in 2014 does bring no doubt that the discrimination has happened in Norway at least in the past 2 years. Perhaps it is worthy to mention that the Samii minorities in Norway has also been suffering from discrimination since long time. After Iranian and Chinese, it seems like it is Russian's turn. Discrimination shall be condemned and I support keeping this article in Wikipedia as there is no doubt about the credibility of this article. Mikhail.bulgakov (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Mikhail.bulgakov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sockpuppet potentials

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the content instead of "a major contributor"

I know that you didn't like campaigning type of edit here, but the article itself is purely truth and very well-referenced. amiri don't delete the whole thing, just improve the tone as you wish.PenLover (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PenLover the article fails almost every content policy we have. People who talk about The TruthTM are generally not here to build an encyclopedia and generally don't give a rat's ass about Wikipedia and its policies - it is the completely wrong "head". Please read everything I wrote on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2015 (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.
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 speedily deleted by User:Orangemike per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Allen (murder victim)

James Allen (murder victim) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. No lasting coverage in reliable sources beyond the initial news article. The author removed my prod because it was a "historical event notable enough for coverage in its own page in the maryland state archives", butthat page does not cover Allen in any detail. Google Books found some results about an unrelated James Allen that was also lynched in 1894, but not a shred of coverage of this one. Huon (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: That the Maryland State Archives believes it is notable enough to devote a web page to this heinous crime should be enough. Most activities in 1894 are not googleable, but one could easily argue that every documented lynching is notable. Is there such a thing as a non-notable lynching? Black lives matter. The Dissident Aggressor 19:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: as the only contributor to this article. Upon further research, it appears that this man was not lynched, but rather legally executed by hanging. I've added a newspaper article that gives a detailed account of this execution and dispels the myth that his death was a lynching. The Dissident Aggressor 22:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really hate to say this, but...from what I can tell, Mr Allen was just (!!!) another murder victim; like so many who died in the Holocaust, or during the Reign of Terror, or in the Killing Fields, or on 9/11, he does not automatically meet notability criteria solely because of the horrific and unjust circumstances under which he was killed. If we have a list of lynching victims, he can be included on that, but the meager information provided is really not enough to support an article. Regretful delete, unless more information can be provided. DS (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean his lynching wasn't popular enough? We're talking about a documented, racially motivated murder of a targeted individual. Quite an encyclopedia you are here to build. The Dissident Aggressor 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (although I agree with DS that it's regretful...) - The page at the Maryland State Archives lists his death as a "possible lynching." It appears that they are basing that off a passing mention in this article about a different lynching, where it states that James Allen was "recently hanged for a similar offense." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's all we have in the way of information about this event. The fact that James Allen doesn't meet notability standards is not a reflection of the importance of his death. Rather, our content needs to be verifiable and the subject's notability goes hand in hand with being able to write verifiable articles. We regretfully don't have enough information in the form of reliable sources to publish an article about Allen's death. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 21:32, 12 June 2015 (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.
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 delete. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weightism

Weightism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads as basically 100% editorial. quite literally zero used sources. zero neutrality whatsoever. there isn't a single thing that isn't just conjecture. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly unsourced, the one sourced sentence that was added since this AfD was opened would be better at Anti-fat bias. I don't think this would be a good redirect to there, though, both because it appears to be a neologism and because "discrimination or stereotyping based on one's weight" presumably could refer to very thin people as well. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2015 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

AfDs for this article:
The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this book fails WP:NBOOK. Namely: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book 2. The book has won a major literary award. 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. 4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country 5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. How anyone can seriously claim this book (a series of essays) can meet this is beyond me.AusLondonder (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The proposer fails to make any case for deletion: just quoting the rules without explaining how it fails to meet them is pointless. Although it's not widely reviewed in the mainstream press, the article indicates multiple reviews: Asia Times, Publishers Weekly, Midwest Book Review, though some of these are no longer online. There's also coverage in National Review, mentions in other books, and brief notices in Library Bookwatch[2] and First Things[3]. Not all of these are nutty right-wing islamophobic bloggers, and the article offers a balanced account rather than a PR puff. If the sources aren't judged sufficient, it could be merged to Robert Spencer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC
Comment. For criteria 1, it has not received significant non-trivial published works. 2. Obviously it has not won any awards. 3. Nope. 4. Nope. 5. Definitely no. AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Plenty of RS already cited in the article, including influential journals and newspapers like The Middle East Journal and Asia Times. Nom may also have a WP:COI problem by PRODing (on the 29th) five articles [4],[5],[6],[7],[8] on books critical of Islam while elsewhere !voting Keep on obviously less worldly-publicly-visible entities like the Afghanistan International Bank. Also potential sock (two-week-old account whose first edit consisted of creating a large article with multiple sections containing complex forms). Pax 11:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for sticking to the issues and your demonstration of WP:GOODFAITH. AusLondonder (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the first article I created did not contain complex forms. Any forms I have used in any articles have been copied-and-pasted from other articles then edited. AusLondonder (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability is certainly not established according to the criteria at WP:NBOOK. For the censorship argument, are you seriously suggesting we keep an article that is not notable to ensure false accusations of censorship are not made?AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, still meets WP:GNG. Although the last two afds resulted in keep, see WP:NTEMP "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, ... Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered."Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NBOOK is the relevant criteria.AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. GNG trumps everything else. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am astounded, that as of yet, no editor has used the criteria at WP:NBOOK to justify keeping this article, instead accusing me of bad faith, of being a sock, of having a conflict of interest, using the wrong criteria and using the 'censorship' excuse. What a disappointing deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Should the article The Myth of Islamic Tolerance be deleted, as I believe the article fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. As of yet, no editor has indicated how it meets WP:NBOOK, however consensus cannot be reached. AusLondonder (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You wanted comments, so here's one. All WP:NBOOK asks for is 2 independent non-trivial RS reviews ("The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"), and this book has had more than that. Launching an RFC is forum-shopping, and beating a dead horse. Don't be surprized if people wonder about your motives. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, I am surprised. What motives are you suggesting I have? A book review does not qualify - are you saying any book to ever receive a book review, no matter how negative, in a credible source is notable? AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You keep citing WP:NBOOK, now try reading it. It's pretty clear. What the review says is immaterial. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did not believe it refered to book reviews. If that is the case, virtually every book is entitled to a Wiki article. I'm quite disgusted with how uncivil you've been here AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to AusLondonder (talk). Quote from WP:NBOOK - "A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article." Also, Johnbod's allusion to 'a dead horse' may refer to WP:DROPTHESTICK?:) Coolabahapple (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it meets WP:GNG much less. By the way, try and remain civil. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You really are a nasty individual User:GuzzyG. How dare you come to this page and throw around those sort of false and malicious allegations in total violation of deletion discussion guidelines. Notice at the top of the page it says 'that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive' - but you ignore every word to spew your lies. How about you check my contributions before you talk such rubbish. AusLondonder (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does calling GuzzyG a nasty individual not violate the very guideline that you just cited? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: Thanks for working on the links. I think clarifying the HighBeam link with WikiP/HighBeam relationship details (and/or a link thereto) is an excellent idea. Thanks again, --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2015 (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.
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chia Hong v. Facebook

Chia Hong v. Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lawsuit was just filed, individual is not notable enough for their own article either. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Userfy WP:TOOSOON to know if any lasting impact to warrant notability. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete for now. While it needs work, the article does not violate WP:GNG. This lawsuit is significant, just by its existence. How that should be reflected in Wikipedia is a broader issue. This suit, the Ellen Pao suit, and the Tina Huang suit against Twitter - also quite recently filed - are all part of a notable emerging trend of women who have come forward to challenge what they - and many observers - see as a "boys' club" atmosphere in many Silicon Valley companies. Some of these lawsuits (Pao's was not) are being brought as class actions, which adds to their notability. This emerging trend has drawn commentary nationally, see for example note in Fortune magazine (http://fortune.com/2015/03/18/facebook-sex-discrimination/) and even from as far afield as the London press. What is probably needed is a single article that discusses this trend, provides cites to these lawsuits, and provides cites to the wide and interesting range of comments that they have elicited. A number of scholars of gender discrimination in employment have seen these lawsuits as drawing attention to a real and important problem of bias in some very prominent high tech companies and the VC's who invest in them. --Pechmerle (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For all the reasons explained by Pechmerle and in anticipation of being able to merge with the other lawsuits. I'll be able to add to the references and add content based upon the references already provided. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Hisashiyarouin, without prejudice to recreation down the road if new sources and developments merit. It's because of articles like these that we have WP:NOTNEWS and expect WP:LASTING coverage of a topic. At this stage we accomplish little more than creating an echo chamber for the allegations, without any indication of their substance or likelihood of surviving even preliminary legal proceedings. Most lawsuits, even those that get some initial press and/or are against prominent companies, do not ultimately satisfy GNG, so there's no reason to give it the benefit of the doubt unlike with some other current events. And no, Pechmerle, whether a lawsuit is a class action (not that this lawsuit is, anyway) has nothing to do with whether it merits an article. Whether the lawsuit might merit a mention within another article, however, is a separate question (though don't forget WP:UNDUE). postdlf (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. There should also be a place for Huang v. Twitter. These cases are getting and going to keep getting significant coverage, like Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. Let a little time pass and then decide whether best for them stand alone as separate articles. Or merge into Sexism in the technology industry. Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the two cases associated with Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, this one filed by counsel in that case, Lawless & Lawless. The extent of press coverage remains uncertain, however, and it make take a year or more to come to trial if it is not settled. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl oh hello! 05:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the only reference currently is a copy of the filing hosted on scribd, a Google search reveals a few, brief news articles about the filing. The person is question is not notable enough to stand on their own either. Please explain how this passes WP:GNG. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commen: The problem with covering lawsuits as they happen, is that at the lawsuit's onset, most of the source material is focused on the accusations, which often turn out to be bogus, misleading, trivial, legal harassment or even hoaxes in retrospect. The finger in Wendy's chili is a good example, where our article would have had gross errors and far from NPOV at the onset, and could only possibly be correct after courts, experts, the public, press, etc. get the facts right themselves. For now, while covering recent events like this is discouraged it is allowed and I'm not sure I see a good common sense reason Wikipedia would benefit from removing it. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: Thanks for commenting -- your comment relies on the following assumptions:
1. Causes of Action often turn out to be bogus
2. A report of a court filing cannot be evaluated WP:NPOV before it goes to trial
Can you please tell us:
1. How you determine that Causes of Action are often bogus — are you relying on unbiased information? If so can you link to an article on Wikipedia that supports your assertion?
2. At what point should a wiki-article be started:
  • Before the trial starts and if so when?
  • When the trial is underway?
  • After closing arguments have been reported?
  • After the judge/jury make a decision?
  • Not before the Supreme court renders a decision?
  • Else? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech:
  1. They actually do often turn out to be bogus. Millions of such lawsuits are filed every year. Even if that were not the case, a filed lawsuit only contains the POV of the filer, and it's therefore a violation of WP:NPOV.
  2. A wikipedia article should be started when the case is notable. It isn't. Facebook is notable, and this article is only mentioned anywhere outside of court schedules because of Facebook's notability. When the case is concluded, it may be noteworthy enough to include in Criticism of Facebook. ― Padenton|✉   00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a filed lawsuit only contains the POV of the filer, and it's therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. -- Goodness gracious, no! That is absolutely not how NPOV works. The neutral point of view is always and only determined with regard to the published sources, not with regard to the subject matter itself. From WP:NPOV's intro: NPOV [...] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. --89.0.225.182 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lawsuit isn't a reliable source for information on Facebook, which is how it was being used in the article. And per your quoting of NPOV's intro, this article has no information on Facebook's response to these claims, which is a violation of WP:NPOV and the sentence you quoted. ― Padenton|✉   02:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this article has no information on Facebook's response to these claims -- The article doesn't need any mention of Facebook's response in order to be perfectly NPOV -- unless Facebook's response is covered in published sources. If it isn't, too bad for Facebook, but absolutely not a violation of NPOV. --89.0.225.182 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is covered in published sources, which you would know if you had looked. ― Padenton|✉   02:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Simple case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:GNG either, as there are no sources independent of the subject. All claims attributed to sources are only included in those sources quoting Chia Hong or Chia Hong's complaints. Since that sentence is somewhat convoluted and I can't think of a better way to word it, allow me to provide an example (albeit an absurd one): Jack Johnson files a lawsuit against the US government alleging that lizard people invaded his mind on the orders of President Obama. I'm sure we can agree reliable sources would have an article or two on that case. The case would easily make WP:GNG based on the arguments above, should we have an article on that too? ― Padenton|✉   00:41, 14 April 2015 (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.
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 WP:SNOW keep. Discussions about content (title, bias, etc.) should be and already are on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) ansh666 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racial incident

2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racial incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attack page about an insignificant incident, meant to smear a historical organization. Not notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page has been renamed, 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident, which sounds even more slanderous.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Racism incident" seems like a reasonable and accurate descriptor, if not a flattering one. If you really have a problem with it then the Talk page for the article is probably a better venue than AFD. Artw (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Artw: I did, to no avail so far. The other editors seem very ideologically driven. I think Wikipedia should remain neutral/encyclopedic. I added a comment here because the page for deletion has been renamed; it sounds even more like an attack page IMO.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Renamed in a slanderous manner? A. I undid your undiscussed move; B. The page-name I returned it to was consistent with the cited sources; and C. Please read Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats and stop making accusations like this. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems inappropriate/like original research/an opinion to use that word unless it is a direct quote. See the talkpage. I only added a comment here to let everyone know the title has been changed (for the worse) since I created this AFD. We can discuss this more on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current events are often included in Wikipedia. We started writing the MH370 articles 6 hours after it disappeared. I don't think that's enough of a reason to delete it, simply because it's current. We can edit it as more facts come up. AvatarQX (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep An incident that has received national attention and fulfills many Wikipedia notability tenets. An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance. Already SAE chapters are being investigated nationwide. This incident has ramifications for fraternities at many other universities.--The lorax (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We report lasting impact, we don't anticipate it. We have no idea where this will lead, if anywhere. BTW, if the word "strong" means anything here, please count me as "Strong delete"; if not, it just looks silly. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The story is everywhere in the media and appears to have potential for long term significance. Meanwhile the editing disputes were overwhelming the main articles about OU and SAE. I was intially disposed against having a spinout article about this, but I've changed my mind in light of the continued furor. This article allows us to develop the content about this story in an orderly fashion, and if the story really does disappear in 6 months, we can merge it back in. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Incident has some lasting consequences (closing the chapter of the fraternity, putting increased scrutiny on this and other organisations) and has depth of coverage and a diversity of sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly no lack of sources, and likely to have some lasting consequences. Artw (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an attack page, and it should not become one. It is also not an insignificant event based on the level of national media coverage it has received and reaction to it on the campus of OU. The article should remain so that the content can develop, similar to the way that 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing was developed over time. FFM784 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainley passes all notability standards.--75* 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. It's too soon to tell if this has a lasting impact and persistent coverage, but it certainly meets all the other criteria laid out for Wikipedia:Notability (events). Expanding coverage at Sigma Alpha Epsilon would be fine, too. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for sure. This will no doubt add to the effect of the already happening racism discussion in the U.S., it's been in the news for weeks, and it's definitely something that will have an impact of SAE, if not the university itself. I can't see why we'd not keep it. It hardly seems like a hate page, and if anything posted is controversial or biased, we can edit it. It doesn't become polarized until we make it polarized - by that logic, we shouldn't have definitions of Benghazi either. AvatarQX (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wide discussion in thousands of secondary sources across our planet. — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and strong keep In all fairness, I personally spent a fair amount of time last evening working on the prose, and making it neutral. We can work on the title, and do additional good faith editing to make it better, but this was clearly a notable event because of the level of media coverage, and the constitutional issues raised by the students expulsion. Strong keep, and based on the !votes so far, we are headed toward a speedy close of this AfD. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (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.
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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White savior narrative in film

White savior narrative in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially biased source material and conclusions based on opinion rather than fact. If the article was highlighting that some believe there is a "white savior narrative" then deletion would not be needed; however, assertions made about specific films are all opinions and not objective review of the films. To quote the entry for "12 Years a Slave": "While 12 Years a Slave focused mainly on Northup's resilience, and a Canadian did in reality rescue Northup, the film was identified as the latest cinematic representation of slavery that depicted a white savior." This appears agenda driven; disregarding facts of the film and history in order to claim that the film somehow fits this idea. Furthermore the use of potentially biased online articles as the major source of support does not lend to objectivity. Quoting the page itself: "David Sirota at Salon.com said, 'These story lines insinuate that people of color have no ability to rescue themselves.' This again is an opinion and not a fact, yet it is asserted as fact in the Wiki article. What a person takes away from a piece of art is subjective not objective. The Wiki article attempts to use the subjective interpretation of flims as support for an objective claim. If the article was used to inform the reader that there are people who believe there is a white savior narrative and what those beliefs entail then the article would be objective. However, the article instead attempts to replace objectivity with the subjective opinions and feelings of others in an attempt to support a claims about films that can and have been disputed. Talk pages have been used. When criticism is levied against source material the source material is used to confirm the source material. FauXnetiX (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) — FauXnetiX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As an addition it should be noted that the definition of this trope seems to be any "white" (which can mean anything as indicated by the talk page) hero that assists anyone who isn't "white" makes this position untenable. As for clean up, attempts have been made, but edits are constantly reverted and discussion is avoided on the talk page. Clean up isn't possible when criticism is ignored and opinion is asserted as fact. FauXnetiX (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a topic that meets WP:GNG. Just Googling for "white savior" film shows numerous results in Google Books and Google Scholar. This is a sociological topic. The book Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness is a collaboration between a sociologist and a film critic. The book mentioned in the "Further reading" section, The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption, is a highly detailed book by a sociologist about the subject. Even if one disagrees with the topic, there is no reason presented to delete it. Discussion about the wording of the topic should be had on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this edit, concerns on the talk page led to revising the first paragraph of the article to be based on the Temple University sociologist's assessment as well as the film critic/sociologist's assessment. Journalistic observations were relegated to the second paragraph. In addition, for the list of films, the Hughey book lists nearly all of these as well. I can add references for these films to warrant their listing further. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources show this is a notable topic, whatever one's opinion of it. Borock (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see this page deleted. The way the page is written right now, it makes this trope so broad it ceases to be much. For instance, when I questioned whether or not Avatar really qualified to be on the list of films featuring the trope, as the trope is about race of the savior and those saved, I was told that the aliens may not be people of color literally, but symbolically they were. I also pointed out that actor Keanu Reeves is half Chinese and his race never made explicit in The Matrix. This means that the assertion that he is a white savior is questionable and based on assumption. When basically the race of the "white" savior can include half Asians, and the victims can be symbolic people of colors represented by blue aliens or gross prawn ones, then I have to question if there is a line at all for what couldn't qualify assuming it has someone save a bunch of people. Captain Stack (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The case needs to be made that the topic is not notable for Wikipedia, but it passes the general notability guidelines in having plenty of coverage, as I highlighted above. For Avatar, there are especially numerous results just for that particular film in Google Books and Google Scholar. The results highlight that none of the oppressed Na'vi, similar to indigenous peoples, can save themselves, it takes a white savior. As for The Matrix, Keanu Reeves passes as white. That is why his characters in The Matrix and Hardball are sociologically identified as white saviors. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a ton of publications that publish celebrity gossip, but that doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. I'm glad you think Keanu Reeves "passes as white" but it doesn't matter what OTHER people think his race is. He is half Chinese, and is biologically as Chinese as he is white. What he personally prefers to identify as is his decision and not yours. Furthermore, it's important that the CHARACTER'S race is not defined and cannot and should not be assumed. The reason this is relevant is because the trope must be well enough defined to qualify as encyclopedic. If the races can be symbolic or assumed then calling it a "white savior narrative" isn't accurate at all. Furthermore, I get that there are articles about this, but quantity of articles isn't enough in itself. I can find articles that say whatever I want, and I can publish whatever I want on the internet. It won't make it true. Captain Stack (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He passes as white in the popular perspective. The detail about his ancestry comes as a surprise to many people. This says, "To most moviegoers, he is an average white guy. He is an archetypal dude. He can be easily accepted as white." It is too narrow to think about needing to define a film character as that of a particular race. Society already defines that for itself, and it reveals this particular trend. Look past the news articles, which are not in depth, and read the sociologists' descriptions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple books about this topic including Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness; Race, Philosophy, and Film; The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption. They specifically give The Matrix as an example. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, well known trope in the sociology of film. See, for example, Turner, Graeme Film as Social Practice Routledge 4th Ed. 2006; Tudor, Andrew Image and Influence: Studies in the Sociology of Film Allen & Unwin 1974. WP does not delete just because some clean-up is needed. P.S.: BTW, Chinese is an ethnicity, not a race. Meclee (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced article on well known trope. Some paragraph breaks wouldn't go amiss though. Also the list portion could probably be replaced by prose which picks a few strong examples rather than it's current scattershot approach. Artw (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rebalance the structure of the article. Currently, we have only a rather long lead section, followed immediately by a list of films. It would be better to have a lead of just one paragraph, followed by one or more sections on discussions of the trope (including its limits and/or its relationship to related tropes) in reliable sources, with the list then following on. Doing this would probably make clearer why certain cases (for instance, Keanu Reeves in The Matrix) are regarded as classic examples of the trope while not conforming with some strict constructions of the terms involved in the usual verbal definition. PWilkinson (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is clearly notable. The sources listed here and in the articles attest to that. If there are specific issues that need to be addressed, they can take place on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone said "Chinese is not a race." Well, white is not a race either. Borock (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment The arguments that the concept is imperfect or even stupid do not make it un-notable.Borock (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2014 (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.
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 delete. Secret account 00:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice against african-brazilian religions

Prejudice against african-brazilian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significance; perhaps the article would be better as "Prejudice against Afro-American religions" with proper sources. However, it seems this article was copy-pasted from the Portuguese Wikipedia (October 2014) by a user who only has one contribution to the English Wikipedia. Also, the article is not written in a formal tone one would expect reading a Wikipedia article. Omo Obatalá (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Prejudice against African-Brazilian religions to correct capitalization. SchreiberBike talk 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2014 (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.
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 delete. Those asking for a straight delete claim that the title is WP:OR and the content is WP:SYNTH. This characterisation was not effectively challenged by anyone. As such, the title cannot be kept, even as a redirect. There were some calls for merge, but no particular consensus on where to. The article can be userfied on request for anyone who thinks they can do something with it. SpinningSpark 08:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Assyrian sentiment

Anti-Assyrian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such concept as "Anti-Assyrian sentiment". The text is between Original Research and Synthesis. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written in the article's talk page, I also doubt that the article's subject actually exists. However, I will wait until some editors more expert in the field give an opinion before voting. I think all of the content in the article is factually correct - the problem is with the grouping of that content into an article with this title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. The article also relies too heavily on one source. While I acknowledge there may have been discrimination against Assyrians, there aren't enough sources to show that the topic itself is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (with mild restructure of lead) to Persecution of Assyrian Christians. The Ottoman Empire managed its religious minorities as a series of millets, where the head of the church was responsible for this people's behaviour. "Assyrian" here means the members of that millet, i.e. of that orthodox denomination. "Sentiment" is an unhelpful euphemism - Muslim persecution of Christians is usually, because of actions that have allegedly offended the sentiments of Muslims. Muslims seem hypersensitive to being offended. This article is at presnet a mere time-line, which I do not like, but it is certainly no rubbish; it may wlll need more citations, vut that applies to many articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why can't all this just be included in a history of Assyrian Christians article (if it is not there already)? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, we have already invented, well others have invented the concept and we have made an article here on it, the Assyrian genocide. So that one covers much more than what is being speculated (OR and synthesis) here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if victims of genocide consider the crime inflicted on them to be an "invented concept"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article title an content is OR and synthesis I doubt "Anti-Assyrian sentiment" is something people are liable to search for. So no need for a redirect, I think. I'd just like some editors who are expert in the field to look at the subject and decide. Is "Anti-Assyrian sentiment" a term that is in use anywhere, such as in academia? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2014 (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.
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 Speedy Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage

Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing listed; no examples given. I doubt any conservatives have faced actual "discrimination" in the literal definition of the word as other "discrimination" articles on Wikipedia describe (see discrimination against atheists and discrimination against the homeless, for instance, that deal with legal discrimination against the respective groups). The examples listed at discrimination against conservatives are not discrimination. Seattle (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2014 (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.
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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against conservatives

Discrimination against conservatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research article about alleged discrimination against social conservatives in the US. The article presents an unsourced thesis and then argues it with a loose collection of cherry picked examples of supposed discrimination against conservatives. In many cases, the subjects themselves are notable for promoting discrimination against other individual and groups. The title may be a candidate for redirection to Social conservatism in the United States. The article is mostly scandal mongering and lacks merit as a serious encyclopedia article. - MrX 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Could the content of the article result in increased persecution of individuals such as those in same sex relationships? If so that could be a valid justification for censorship. Gregkaye (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC) but its mainly weak because I don't like what I'd describe as conservative attitudes. The multiple issues cited are: may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline; may not include all significant viewpoints; lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies; examples and perspective in this article represent opinions from the United States and may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (all from June 2014). Notability! all seems verifiable - 28 references, significant viewpoints: if there is discrimination then the discriminated against must be allowed to speak, if they are wrong then please say why they are wrong, again please, undue weight: how? the article has a topic and is sticking to it, (but I might support a proposed rename if there is a term with a wider meaning than discrimination to enable a wider view of the topic), US centric: I'd speculate that after the US has suffered under George W. Bush etc. there may be more motivation to discriminate against conservatives in the US than other places .. but if that is where discrimination is happening and if thats where "folk" are talking about it then they have a right to speak. I also feel wary about main author and self proclaimed Dr. Bobbie Fox who I wasn't able to find on google Gregkaye (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original synthesis.--4scoreN7 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see an article about discrimination against conservatives. I see a list of examples of people/companies who faced various consequences/bad press as a result of statements on the subject of same sex marriage. There is nothing in here that's actually about conservatism (in the United States or elsewhere). There are indeed a lot of sources out there claiming discrimination against conservatives, but these (like the present article) almost always boil down to a single issue and thus are better suited for our various encyclopedia articles on those specific controversial issues. So delete as an article which exists only as the product of WP:SYNTH. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I will say, however, that I was surprised to see that we don't have an article for political discrimination (maybe I'm just failing in my searches for an equivalent?). But I do see political repression and pages for every notable controversial issue on which people on either side could claim discrimination. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If Rhododendrites' accusations are substantiated then, if it is possible, I would love to see a redirect to a title such as "Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage". Otherwise, in light of WP:CENSOR and admittedly from the perspective of someone not from the United States, I am not sure how far we can go with this. A section could certainly be added to the article with a title like "Reports of contexts of reported incidents of discrimination". A mention of discrimination in this article may be a double edged sword but, again, I am talking from an outsiders perspective. Gregkaye (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding this and your comment above, I fail to see how WP:CENSOR is relevant here. The question isn't whether or not it's harmful, offensive, etc. The question is whether this page is appropriate as an encyclopedia article (i.e. that it is neutral and balanced in its coverage, it is well sourced to reliable sources, contains no original research or synthesis, is not already covered by other articles, and is it notable). We don't redirect to non-existent pages, so are you suggesting instead to rename the page? --— Rhododendrites talk |  02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have placed original research and neutrality tags on the article and I totally agree. Delete. You say that you don't see an article about discrimination against conservatives. Is there a tag for misrepresentation of title or similar. In another situation perhaps this is the kind of labelling that might be used. It is clear that article titles should be representative of their contents. I also think that, as a general rule, articles should be correctly tagged in line with the content of an AfD preferably before AfD requests are submitted. Yes, I had in effect suggested a move but that seems a moot point now. Gregkaye (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also think that Wikipedia should rethink its policy on censorship. Gregkaye (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure WP:OR. An article on a phenomenon that does not actually exist outside the tortured fringe spheres of the right-wing blogosphere. A laundry list of disparate white people problems does not a topic make. Tarc (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This sorry article starts by citing "a survey carried out by the [sic] psychologists of the [sic] Tilburg University among their colleagues". True, it only does so via a Moonie-financed newspaper; but very little effort is needed to find the actual article, "Political diversity in social and personality psychology", indeed written by two psychologists at Tilburg U, and apparently published in a respectable journal. The article says In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate. Now, one shouldn't rush to write articles on the strength of a single academic article (so far little cited, though there is this), and this study may be mistaken; but Perspectives on Psychological Science is not a "tortured fringe sphere of the right-wing blogosphere". -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's plenty of evidence that people avoid or oppose those who do or say things they find repellent. Some of these "things" are often associated with the right wing, just as others are often associated with the left. The article alludes to a single paper (PDF) that talks of discrimination against conservatives. There could be something to this. Wait until it's clear that there indeed is. Meanwhile, this is mostly a ragbag collection of efforts to spurn or oust a few semipublic figures because of particular beliefs or actions ascribed to them. -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, as the author of the original article, I can see it wasn't very consistent. However, there is an ongoing trend of boycotting/vilifying public figures who oppose gay marriage in the 2010s, which clearly wasn't present in the 2000s (it's not just "avoiding or opposing" like Hoary said, it involves launching massive campaigns against these people's art, career, etc.). It shouldn't be too difficult to find reliable sources on that matter (Deseret news, Washington post, Daily caller, etc.), which analyze the trend as a whole. Therefore I suggest renaming it to Discrimination against same-sex marriage opponents in the United States, Social pressure against same-sex marriage opponents in the United States or something like that. --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As used in a substantial number of reliable source books etc. implicitly or explicitly - including NYT usage regarding "liberal bias" etc. It may well need a different title, but simple deletion is simply covering our eyes as to what is discussed in many places now. It is, moreover, not our place as Wikipedia editors to make any value judgments that "it was their fault because they opposed something which is a fundamental right" (In many cases, the subjects themselves are notable for promoting discrimination against other individual and groups.) or the like. We only can use what the sources specifically state, so that sort of argument is invalid here. [9], etc. Better to improve this article than to let such non-policy reasoning hold sway here. Collect (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I removed some "extravagant language" from the article - but a genuine skeleton of an article definitely exists. Collect (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Rhododendrites. To be neutral, a title like Political discrimination in the United States would be best. As titled, the article is a problematic but the basic premise behind it is sound and the current material is sourced and worthwhile as a start. People/orgs/biz discriminate based solely on political leanings in the US, and there is plenty of material about the topic. While this focuses only on conservatives (which is a problem), I'm confident that the pendulum swings both ways and the overall topic of discrimination is worth writing about. Rather than see it go away, I think we are better to open the door and cover the topic in a broader sense. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BLOWITUP. The "examples" are all "discrimination against anti-homosexuals", and are only reported, not put in any context. The paper referred to in the lead does (at least, appears to) report discrimination against conservatives, but I suspect you could find equally good sources that conservatives discriminate against liberals. My google-foo is not the best, but political discrimination looks more appropriate, if commentary on the issue can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the university study was not about LGBT positions but "conservative" in general, and this is likely the single strongest source in the article on the exact topic. I suspect the NYT Public Editor columns about bias on that newspaper also would be germane, and a few other sources. There are, of course, arguments that anyone perceived to be "not us" is likely to be discriminated against, but that is not a policy based reason for deletion of this article IMO. Collect (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The university survey (not study) was about "conservative" in general; however, it wasn't even single-blind (the participants knew the researchers, as well as the other way around). Although in a legitimate journal, it has no statistical significance. Even if the article were to be kept, I would question the "reliability" of the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Parsing "survey" v. "study" seems without merit here. Meanwhile the topic makes the NYT [10], Bloomberg's speech at Harvard, [11] Okrent's dissection of the NYT in his position as Public Editor, inter alia. It is a "real topic" and likely should also include allegations of anti-liberal attitudes as well, but real topics merit Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to head off at the moment, but the survey would fail the form of WP:RS now applied to scientific articles. I'll have to consider whether the NYT articles (if they are articles) discuss discrimination against conservative ideas or discrimination against conservatives. If they do discuss the topic of the article, we could add them to the lead, and remove all the examples, and start editing again. In that case, I would change my !vote to Keep (but remove examples which do not say specifically that they are "discrimination against conservatives", and are commented on. That would be all the examples now here. I do not think the published survey is adequate to indicate notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is it a scientific articla? In a news article that does not erroneously confuse sexual issues with political issues I see no problem. It might be relevant to state the category of source that a citation came from: academic source, university-level textbook, book published by respected publishing house, magazine, journal, mainstream newspaper etc. if this categorisation was applied consistently to citations. Gregkaye (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Collect, I looked at both of the links you provide. Both briefly address allegations of a liberal bias (one in TV content, the other in the NYT). "Discrimination" is a slippery term, and in one of its meanings I unashamedly discriminate among choices during most of my waking hours (and ought to be institutionalized if I didn't); in this context, though, we're surely talking about inequitable and unjustifiable discrimination against people. I don't see any mention in either of those links of a claim that those who hold or espouse views that are conservative (however defined) are discriminated against (have difficulty getting served, have difficulty getting, keeping or advancing in their jobs, are "profiled" for immigration or police checks, etc). I'm willing to believe that sane people have seriously alleged that such discrimination exists; you are of course free to add it to the article under discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No doubt, there is such thing as discrimination against conservatives. Unfortunately, discrimination research looks like | this. It accounts for methodology and data sets and statistical measures. I would love to see some competent studies of discrimination against conservatives. Unfortunately, there's none to be found here. This is WP:COATRACK.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious coatracky synthesis; there's no there there in these disparate incidents. People choosing how to spend their money isn't discrimination - it's the free market, baby. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article title has no basis in political reality. This is is not discrimination. Look at that article. See anything about political affiliation there? Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion etc is prohibited by the US Constitution, while treating people differently because of their politics is no more than refusing to cooperate, and any laws forcing cooperation with opposing political forces would be the worst sort of impingement on political freedom. Anarchangel (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No policy issue -- just a claim that refusing to work with people because of their political beliefs is fully proper - thus is not "discrimination." What an interesting viewpoint, but not one which has any policy basis at all. Collect (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Constitution comes first. Then, maybe, we write about it. That is to say, it must be notable. In a case of discrimination, if it is not covered by the Constitution, it does not exist. If it does not exist, it is not notable, and we do not write about it. Not my fault if there is no WP rule that specifically states there should not be articles about a subject which is defined so badly as to be nonexistent. I suspect there are, though. I suspect, also, that you have stumbled upon a new Argument to Avoid in deletion discussions; sort of the opposite of the rule against throwing acronyms at the problem instead of using logical arguments. I used a logical argument and no acronyms. So? Anarchangel (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! If the Constitution does not cover it, it does not exist is an amazing claim. Cheers -- but if that is the basis for "deletion" then anyone closing it should give that argument the precise weight it deserves. Collect (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that there may be United States conservatives that neither support or oppose same sex marriage. Some may even support it and some may themselves be very gay. I also suspect that there may be people from other political views that have strong opposition to same sex marriage. I would be dubious about any title that associated sexuality based prejudice and a political view if there were more broadly defined titles that could be sensibly used. An association might be done on a more individual basis but within the context of an article Gregkaye (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy is WP:TITLE. Article titles should be what the article is actually about. This article is not about discrimination; it's a COATRACK of cherry-picked examples of reactions to discriminatory statements and actions of people who oppose same sex marriage. To loosely collect all of these reactions under the banner of 'discrimination' is blatant SYNTHESIS, it's misleading, and it violates WP:NPOV.- MrX 01:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you dislike a title - the course is to rename the article. The fact is that one survey shows a concrete issue is what one must contend with - and that the same concerns were expressed by the Public Editor of the New York Times. Calling Okrent a "blatant" anything is likely incorrect. And his point said nothing whatsoever about "same sex marriage" and the survey was not about "same sex marriage." The cavils about the cases shown may indicate that broader cases should be added, but the assertion that no issue exists is simply blindness to real problems which have existed in many places over many years. I suggest that a person in the pre-war South who opposed slavery would have been boycotted by his neighbors - and this is the same issue -- the issue of "trial by vote" of any political position. Twain wrote about people viewed as "pro-Chinese" in nineteenth century San Francisco being driven out of town (an ongoing issue which arose again in the willful internment of Japanese-Americans in WW II and the interesting profitable seizure of their lands and businesses). Santayana's admonition about ignoring the past is relevant here. Should the article be broader? Likely yes. Should it be deleted? Likely no. In fact, the perils of any "blacklist" would be a fit here. Collect (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a hot mess of original research and synthesis wrapped into a article fork of an urban legend. If this article about this fringe belief is kept, it must be re-named into something more neutral. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would not be opposed to Political discrimination in the United States, but this article has way too many issues, and I'm not convinced that all of them are solvable through normal editing. A more neutral presentation that included actual discussion of the topic, instead of cherry-picked examples, would be a viable topic. The way it's currently written seems to be some kind of "discrimination against bigots" soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV coatrack. Political discrimination in the United States might be an encyclopedic topic. This article ain't it, nor even within the same zip code of being it... Carrite (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A load of recentvist hooey. Of no value in anything close to this form. 70.192.87.133 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2014 (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.
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 delete. without prejudice to future creation of a new article on Legal status of Chinese people in America j⚛e deckertalk 03:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal history of Chinese Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been troubled with various issues from its creation date, some of which has been mentioned on the article talk page. The creator and affiliated people of said user have abandoned resolving the issues. There's no clear scope and most of its content is unsuitable if one can call it content. The article history has been riddled with copyright violations from its creation and from its recreation. The remnants should be treated carefully in that regards too, close paraphrasing and such. In conclusion, it would be best to delete this article rather than try to go the lengthy and cumbersome way to fix this (there was two plus years for that). If someone decides to recreate this article, I doubt any current content would be salvaged anyway than to start afresh. Besides, there's no point in saving an article history filled with copyright violations. Cold Season (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The author pledged to recreate it properly, only too abandon it in this state... The article is a remnant of something comprising a chronological overview, with the most-blatant issues cleansed, thus the listing in its stead (it gives an idea at how much needed to be removed). People have wasted too much time to salvage it, but feel free to do your attempt for this keep or merge (and prove me wrong, I doubt it; it's more likely that an attempt would focus on starting over). The topic is worth having, this content is not. --Cold Season (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2014 (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.
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 (non-admin closure) --Jakob (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lookism

Lookism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet notability guidelines for neologisms, should be deleted on that demerit, alone. In addition, the article presents the following issues: article is written in a feminocentric tone; some sources may show bias; article may draw its own conclusions. Rat Meat (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Several thousand GBook hits, and I expect I would find the same thing in the scholarly literature. The article may be junk but it's a notable topic. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (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.
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 REDIRECT to Human rights in China#Ethnic minorities. Acxle has pretty much made this a fait accompli by adding the material into the article. No comment on whether or not this can eventually be cut out into a stand-alone article. SpinningSpark 20:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights of ethnic minorities in China

Human rights of ethnic minorities in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article duplicates the topic of Human rights in China and Ethnic issues in China. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. The topic is perfectly covered within the scope of those articles. Also, why does it matter or should we care about how many ethnic groups there are in China? M. Caecilius (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If delete this article, there must be section "Human rights of ethnic minorities" in Human rights in China. Acxle (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Acxle (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Article violates WP:LINKFARM, WP:SOAP and WP:RS for alot of its content, such as Dr. Paul George and Habib Siddiqui's articles (they have absolutely no credentials in the area). Wikipedia is not a platform to promote a certain cause or agenda. The article is essentially a one sided, random criticism of China thrown together without any context. If the article gets merged, most of the content on the merged article is going to get deleted anyway since it already violates WP:SOAP and WP:RS.Rajmaan (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Rajmaan, that WP:LINKFARM and WP:SOAP are not valid reasons for deletion and while WP:RS is a valid reason, it is not shown that there are no possible reliable sources, only that many of the current sources are not reliable. Delete in the context of a Afd does not mean delete the content rewrite a better article later. An Afd deletion means there will be no article with that title at all; not now and not in the future either. Before deleting, we should look to see if an article can be improved. If it can, then that is the course of action, even if every line or text is replaced and even if it takes years to do. It may be suitable to incubate an article while it is improved. Alternatively, write a quick stub and place that over the existing article thus removing the content you find objectionable until a longer article develops. A third option is to blank and redirect. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Substantially covered in numerous sources such as Equality, autonomy, and development: The pattern of protection of the human rights of ethnic minorities in China Xinhua Chubanshe 1998 as well as other book sources. Also numerous articles on this subject. Sufficiently distinct from human rights issues although there is some overlap. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially covered in numerous sources has nothing to do with the current article. The article, as it stands, is a badly written non-POV compilation of attacks on China, promoting a certain POV, a linkfarm, and sourced with articles written by people who have zero credentials in the area. If you feel you have reliable sources, then rewrite the article yourself after the current one is deleted. The source you just named is not currently being used in the article, it is a red herring to say the topic of the article is notable and well covered in sources not even used in the article, while the current article is written horribly.Rajmaan (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the title. There should be an article on this topic. Topic ban for User:Acxle for linking news stories that abuse the facts to summary that abuses the sources further. [17] and [18] The facts scream out at this tortuous treatment. China allows two children per family in rural areas. All rural areas. To everyone. http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4f13d6f42.pdf The article claims not just the reverse, but that a specific group, Han, are given two in a specific area, Xinjiang, while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one. An article on Islamic terrorism is used to justify this rich and complex falsehood. Either way you slice it, whether as bad faith or some sort of excellent ineptitude, this is harmful to the encyclopedia. Same for the sentence at the end of the article: An article which unwisely uses its mind-reading powers to discern a "hint" in a speech, is turned by the article summary into a fact. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy as "keeping" a title, the policy is, that if the topic is notable but the article written about it violates policy, we delete the existing article and someone can create a new, neutral, non-POV article on the topic.Rajmaan (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchangel: "while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one" Where are you getting this information from? It's quite contradictory to well sourced information on other articles. Non-Han ethnics are not limited by the one-child policy, according to Affirmative action in China and related pages. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is what Anarchangel said, he explaining that what Acxle wrote is wrong.Rajmaan (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Rajmaan created Chinese propaganda articles: Migration to Xinjiang, User:Rajmaan/Migration to Xiniiang. What is purpose of these articles? Are these aricles necessary? There are many articles about human rights in Tibet but very few articles created for other ethnic minorities.

Acxle (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make double votes, as this makes it difficult to gauge the number of editors in support of each side and could be perceived as cheating the system. As for Migration to Xinjiang, there is no similar overlap with existing pages, and I'm not sure why you called it a "Chinese propaganda page", given that you are more than free (and I would encourage you) to add the Uyghur viewpoint in an NPOV manner into that article. I do think that more coverage on human rights of ethnic minorities in China other than the Tibetans is necessary, but we must consider the availability of reliable sources (which, by the way, a very large number of yours I don't consider to be). If there are a very large number of reliable sources covering what is clearly a very salient issue in popular discourse, then make it a separate page dealing specifically with the region/ethnicity, like "human rights of Uyghurs". If not, then integrate it into existing pages like human rights in China and Uyghur people. What I don't think is necessary is a separate page specifically on the human rights of ethnic minorities in China in general, especially since as it stands now that page more or less deals exclusively with the Uyghurs. Hope this clarifies my position. M. Caecilius (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reject User:Acxle's ad hominem attack (see WP:NPA). In fact, what I wrote on the article Migration to Xinjiang is the exact opposite of Chinese historiography. In China, the Qing attack on the Zunghars is viewed as a heroic endeavor by the Qianlong Emperor while the Zunghar Khan Amursana is villified as a rebel. Mongols have called out China on this issue, China downplays the Qing genocide of the Zunghars while I created an entire Zunghar genocide article, and if I was a historian in China, I could potentially be permanently banned from academia for that. And in fact only one source used in the article is from China. Is Acxle suggesting that western historians who work at western universities like Professor James A. Millward, Peter C. Perdue, Christian Tyler, and Ildikó Bellér-Hann are Chinese propagandists?Rajmaan (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acxle's characterization of Rajmaan's article Migration to Xinjiang as Chinese propaganda is utter nonsense. In that article Rajmaan covers extensively the important and often neglected Zunghar genocide, probably not one of the most glorious moments in Chinese history. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2014 (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.
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. I'm closing this early per the snowball clause; I don't see any likelihood of an outcome other than keep based on the discussion so far. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation academies

Segregation academies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NEO Verdad (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a shockingly misguided nomination. For more insight into the nominator's mindset, who seems to think that this term was invented by Wikipedia (!?), see this comment on the article's talk page. Then see the extensive discussion and coverage of this topic by name without scare quotes in reliable sources dating back forty years and more: [19], [20], [21], [22], and on and on and on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article does not fall under WP:DICDEF. This article doesn't provide a simple dictionary definition; it quite obviously discusses the subject's history extensively and provides a wealth of reliable sources on the details of the topic. Furthermore, the term is most certainly not a neologism as per the sources linked by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah above. --Kinu t/c 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For one thing, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NEO" is a sentence fragment (or two), not a well-supported argument for deletion; for another, this article is no more a dictionary definition than is the article on, say, "Jim Crow laws". 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Segregation academies were a well-documented response to desegregation. Hundreds of other articles link to the article. The article is important and should remain in Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its current form, the article violates WP:NEO. I apologize for the previous sentence fragment. I find the continued use of scare_quotes and terminology like, "so-called" and "dubbed" indicative that the term is a neologism. Regardless of the date it was first used... (And I stand corrected. My fears are assuaged . The term did not originate on Wikipedia. Thank you, alf laylah wa laylah)... sources using the term uniformly include scare quotes, etc. I disagree with alf laylah wa laylah's assertion that the sources do not. And I encourage participants in this discussion to view the cited sources. I don't mind the article not being deleted. But, It seems to me it needs serious overhaul. For example, the Allen v Wright case, which forms a large portion of the article, makes no mention of the term. And so on, and so forth.Verdad (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --doncram 00:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Important topic, clear notability. (If the decision is to Keep, I would recommend renaming the article in the singular, as per WP:TITLE, to Segregation academy.) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (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.
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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 05:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Guam

Racism in Guam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially original synthesis. The lead acknowledges, in fact, that racism is not particularly prevalent, and then the article appeals to a couple of incidents in which accusations of racism were made. There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is really a thing. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the incidents are by any means notable, they might be included in the article Guam itself. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 12:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK. No need to create a separate home for this content. aprock (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to view the first reference; the second reference only mentions an American governor 100 years ago who is described as being racist. StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube is not much of a source for anything at all -- and the claim about an identifiable living person (Asst. A-G of Guam is a living person, and a specific living person) is contrary to the requirements of WP:BLP. I am quite uncertain the "blog.heritage.com" meets WP:RS for any contentious claims at all. Is Guam blameless? Probably not, but this article is not ready for prime time on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Delete - Racism is an important topic and exists everywhere, so racism in Guam is definitely something that would work on wikipedia. As is, the article isn't going to work. I posted the article on wikiproject: discrimination to see if anyone is interested in taking on the task as well as the talk page of Culture of Guam. I think it may work as a merge onto Culture of Guam. If no one improves the article, I will vote to delete, but I'm hoping that someone can improve the article to meet wikipedia standards. Bali88 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (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.
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 delete. The previous AfD was withdrawn when the nominator learned that this was an educational assignment. That was courteous, allowing time for improvement, although mainspace articles should meet mainspace standards whatever their origin. However, a year on, there have been no major improvements, and in fact I notice that none of the article's original authors has edited since December 2012, that presumably being when their class project ended. Consensus now is clear that this does not meet Wikipedia's standards and that, though an article on this subject might be possible, it would be better started from a clean sheet. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in the family

AfDs for this article:
Sexism in the family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article in an essay. This article is written as such due to a class assignment that is far over and is wholly unencyclopedic. The article is written in a manner that attempts to persuade, and short of a complete rewrite, this article has no content that is salvageable. In addition, there is a whole section (Sexism_in_the_family#Media_for_children) that has nothing to do with the family, but instead an entirely different subject. A merger with Sexism may be considered, but this page has so much bias in it that a complete rewrite of any facts would be needed for a merge with that article. A deletion of this page is the best decision. 155blue (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, presentation seems well sourced and most educational and encyclopedic for topic choice. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presentation is sourced an is completely in violation of WP:NOR. It is an essay which job is to persuade, not to inform. This violates one of the pillars of wikipedia in that it is completely biased.155blue (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Survived the first AfD because it was involved in an educational assignment, but Oklahoma State University should be ashamed of itself for allowing its students to leave the article in such a state. Not only is it an essay, it is a horrible OR essay. It fails to adequately define the topic. The sources listed are not used to aggregate the consensus view of an established topic, but rather are cobbled together to form a vague and original thesis. I am always hesitant about voting "delete" for a topic that hypothetically could be worthwhile, but in this case it is ill-defined. Any attempt to fix it would be more work than simply deleting this mess, but more importantly would be an artificial attempt to recitate a fatally flawed article because it happened to have a good title. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I take the view that any article with more than six 'cleanup' templates automatically qualifies for speedy deletion; not including {{notability}} which is missing, there are currently seven.--Launchballer 17:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a real topic, and a real issue, with a lot of real research done on it. An encyclopaedic treatment could be good, but this isn't it. Article starts with a POV perspective (granted, one that I share) then attempts to convince the reader that it's bad and that something must be done. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Agree with the above assessment that a new title would be needed at a minimum, as well as a hefty dose of WP:TNT to start the thing over. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:19, 8 March 2014 (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.
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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black privilege

AfDs for this article:
Black privilege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article on a concept that appears to have been invented by Metapedia. Fishal (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is not true. The first three GBook hits I get ([23][24][25]) are good, and the third goes on to define the notion. I'm not utterly convinced that this is enough to write an article around, or that the present article addresses the concept as these books do, but it is utterly inaccurate to say that books don't mention this. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to RS and apparent failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there does seem to be a small amount of mainstream coverage, this is primarily a WP:FRINGE theory from Stormfront and its ilk. The only thing we can discuss is how mainstream journalists and researchers state that it's a fringe theory. I don't really see the point, unless people want to use this article to denounce it (a clear case of violating NPOV). The definitions in the books provided by Mangoe seem idiosyncratic and divergent; certainly, they have nothing to do with the White Nationalist rhetoric here. The article could be repurposed for the book definitions and ignore the fringe White Nationalist rhetoric, but I'm not convinced that this is really a thing yet. Google scholar returns some results, but it's still not clear what they're discussing or how accepted any of their definitions are. The majority of them seem to be discussing white privilege. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax/vandalism. The article is copied verbatim from the white privilege article (only changing white to black) and is obviously a parody to make a point. Iselilja (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2014 (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.
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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Romania

Racism in Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whole article is based on a single risible report, which states that Roma are discriminated at employment because they are not enough qualified, they are discriminated regarding the housing because they don't have money to buy authorizations, they are discriminated at education because of the drop-out rate etc. Either better sources are found, or this article should go, in my opinion. Florin zeitblom (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Racism in Romania[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I edited to add a bit on anti-semitism and restructured so it's not purely about treatment of Roma. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you think that the article could be better, you can help us by improving it. bogdan (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The issue at hand is if the subject is notable. The subject of this article is racism. So, yes, it is notable, and Colapeninsula has found some sources. There is also plenty of precedent for covering the subject of racism by nation. Searching for "racism in" brings up plenty of examples of that – the first page of results brings up articles where "Racism in X" is the title or a redirect for the US, Japan, Hungary, Russia, Israel, China, the UK, Australia, Turkey, France, Ukraine, Argentina, Sweden, and India (Also, Europe, Asia, North America, the Palestinian territories, sports, and football (soccer)), so there isn't any reason to think Romania is being "singled out" for this sort of thing. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily sufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (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.
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 no consensus.

There is a very incivil comment on the keep side suggesting that some on the delete side "might be harboring racist notions themselves". Comments like that damage the collegiality and good will that is required for Wikipedia to function.

The main argument on the delete side is that the article is a content fork of Anti-Arabism. This has been countered with arguments that not all from the Middle East are Arabs (conversely, not all Arabs are from the Middle East), so it is not entirely obvious that the two articles are covering the same thing even if there might be considerable overlap. Even so, an argument can be made that the sources that mention hatred towards those from the Middle East are really referring to hatred towards Arabs. I took a look at some of the cited sources, [33] and [34], that mention "Middle East" rather than "Arab", and I couldn't truly make my mind up on who is "right" here.

Some of the arguments on the delete side seem superficial (there are many assertions of WP:CONTENTFORK, but rather less evidence, also "I've heard of anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim, but no anti-Middle Eastern." isn't really an argument either.) I also note that the nominator reconsidered his position during the debate.

The issue here remains unresolved, but at the time I cannot really see a firm consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Middle Eastern sentiment

Anti Middle Eastern sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is copy/pasted from sections of Anti-Arabism. I do not see any discussion of a split, or any reason why one would be warranted here. However, it does not seem to be unambiguous enough to merit an A10 so I am bringing it here for discussion. VQuakr (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 09:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 09:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As you may see all parts of the article are sourced[35]. You should try to fix the links with making them a direct reference instead trying to delete the page. Anti-Arabism and Anti Middle Easterner sentiment are different. Anti-Arabism is more focused on arabs only but anti middle east is about all the middle eastern people.[36] I think instead of deleting these source you would better to fix them by making them direct sources, and why to delete to whole article? any reason?KhabarNegar (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand where you are coming from here - the Anti-Arabism article, when referring to bias occurring outside of the Middle East (especially the USA and Australia - obviously we need to be talking about an area outside of the Middle East for "Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment" to have meaning), does not differentiate between Anti-Arabism, religious discrimination againsts Muslims and Sikhs, and discrimination against people from (or who cosmetically appear to be from) the Middle East such as Iranians and Westerners of Middle Eastern descent. The question is whether it makes sense to have two parallel articles, or whether the scope of Anti-Arabism should be formally expanded (possibly incorporating a title change) to include the scope it already contains. My !vote is still that a single article is merited; if it can be demonstrated that the parallel approach can be done without being a substantial copy then I will consider withdrawing my nomination. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sad part is that there had been an article on "Middle Eastern" Americans, and it had a small and well written section on the subject. The article was deleted several times. If that article still existed, this article might not ever need to have been created in the first place. The Scythian 20:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
VQuakr if you respectfully read this article again you will see that there is not a single claim which is related with anti ARAB ISM or anti Islam, Yes in some parts the attacker have used that terms but the reason of actions are all the middle easterner appearances not anything else at all. so this article in its place have no problem being here and not become removed from Wikipedia, because actually there is no reason. Thats It.
Anti-communism, Russophobia, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment Or we also have Anti-Mexican sentiment & Hispanophobia Or We also have Anti-Christian sentiment, Francophobia, Anti-Western sentiment, Anti-Americanism, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-German sentiment & Anti-Europeanism... So Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, about the concern about having two parallel articles, we may say they are not two parallel articles, they are "completely" different. you may see that right now. in the current article. Please check the sources right now all the events are directly anti middle eastern things and nothing else, Nothing else at all... please check all the events in current article we are talking about and also check their sources. thank you,:) KhabarNegar (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was written wrong, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL KhabarNegar (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, "Anti Middle Eastern sentiment" does have a few hits. Ping me if this article is rewritten using reliable sources, and I'll consider changing my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no convincing evidence that this article provides anything not already in Anti-Arabism - even though there are reliable sources these terms, they essentially seem to be describing anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiment, not a distinct phenomenon.
You are probably not aware of this simple fact, but not everyone who is "Middle Eastern" is an "Arab" nor a "Muslim." Hence the term "Middle Eastern." The Scythian 14:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing other editors of ignorance and bigotry won't get you far - please keep it civil. The point being made is that none of the reliable sources are discussing a form of bigotry that is distinct from anti-arab or anti-muslim bigotry. Until a large number of reliable sources distinguish this as a truly unique phenomenon, then it's not worthy of its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on here for years...Not saying your a racist at all. Just pointing out that the article on racism against Arabs, wouldn't relate to such against Iranians, Israelis, Armenians, Turks, etc. We used to have an article on "Middle Eastern" Americans. The article had a good section on discrimination. The entire article on Middle Eastern Americans, a term recognized by the U.S government, was deleted by editors making the exact same arguments as some here. The article on Anti-Iranian sentiment likewise was called for deletion multiple times in the same fashion. This is getting ridiculous...The truth is, racism against Arabs, Muslims, Middle Easterners and South Asians is generally, though not exclusively, all along the same lines. Arab, Muslim and "Middle Easterner" are terms that get thrown around almost interchangeably. Hence, different articles. Society has not chosen an acceptable term for it yet, but as such, a new "group" has indeed become racialised. Either that, or we create an article with one really long name. That doesn't change the fact that there are SOME editors who would just as see not any article of any name be created, in relation to the subject at hand. The Scythian 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd is useless, till no reliable reason provided Why this article should be removed?, See: WP:Poll KhabarNegar (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Some of the "editors" here simply do not believe/wish the subject to exist. I want the article "fixed," and intend to help do so. It's about time someone created(or recreated?)an article on this subject. It had already been touched upon in the old article on Middle Eastern Americans...But alas, that to was deleted. Twice...By people who felt that as a group, they really didn't exist. The Scythian 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Racism against people of Middle Eastern origin in the United States and Europe is a very real phenomenon and undeniable fact. I would imagine that some of those wanting this article deleted, might be harboring racist notions themselves. The Scythian 14:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:NPA and WP:AGF. No one in these AfD has suggested that this subject does not exist, and no one has expressed an interest in censorship. VQuakr (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor already has. People calling for the article to be deleted and not modified = denial that the subject exists. Anyone denying the subject exists, might have a questionable intention. The article badly needs work from the get go, but that is irrelevant here. Just like the article on Talk:Anti-Iranian_sentiment, there is no shortage of relentless editors who do not believe such a subject exists, and intend to have the article deleted to enforce their own world view. That is a fact, and something that an open air encyclopedia like Wikipedia must strongly guard against. The Scythian 20:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (replacing my implicit delete !vote as nominator) and cleanup the split from Anti-Arabism. The article has been expanded significantly from the copy/paste job that existed when I nominated it. The fact is that most of the incidents listed at Anti-Arabism occurring outside of the Middle East probably are examples of Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment (actions which frequently, but only by happenstance are committed against Arabs) as opposed to another Middle Eastern ethnic group. Anti-Arabism probably is a term better reserved for racist actions targeted specifically against Arabs, which I would expect would me more common in places (particularly in the Middle East) where Arabs are part of a mixed Middle Eastern population (examples in the Anti-Arabism article include Iran, Israel, and Niger). In my opinion - for sections in Anti-Arabism about racism in areas such as North America, Great Britain, and Australia - the examples given (whether they happen to be about actions against Arabs or not) belong in Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment, to the point that those sections in Anti-Arabism should be trimmed to a short paragraph with a main tag linking to the appropriate section in Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment.
A couple of final notes - WP:PERF was brought up earlier in the context of "don't worry about repeating information." This is a misapplication of the linked information page. Articles should not contain duplicated information for readability and navigation reasons, not to keep server load low. And, really, stop the accusations of racism. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:) Thanks for the help if you sincerely tell me what part of the article "Exactly" is original research? By the way I really loved your edit summary :) [38], "not quite", that was nice. anyway thanks for voting & please let me know what part is original research, and also please try once again may be you will find a little tiny parts of the article which have sources. Thanks again for voting and thanks in advance for letting us know what part is original research to your point of view. Regards, KhabarNegar (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This doesn't actually exist, the term is "anti-Arabism", the topic of which is already covered at its respective article. This is an unnecessary and unwelcome fork of that, not a standalone, legitimate subject. It seems we go through these sorts of discussions every few months or so, the most recent IIRC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israelophobia, with some of the same users who insist on editing disruptively. It may be time to discuss topic bans elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, since it's been cleaned up somewhat (although it still needs work: more RS and less OR). Miniapolis 02:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - This should go back to anti-Arabism because this serves as an unnecessary content fork; it does not seem to be acceptable even under WP:RELART at this point. Yes, the source page needs an overhaul, but their is no need to have two pages dedicated to the same thing under slightly different names. Its like petrol and gasoline, they should not have separate articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2013 (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.
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. If folks want to discuss a possible merge they can do that on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 01:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paper bag party

Paper bag party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proper source, article blabbering on about irrelevant source. No paper bag party ever took place. Ysangkok (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existence of a clear source stating the existence of paper bag parties, that last sentence is clearly and simply wrong. Whether the source(s) are appropriate or the topic is notable is a different story; could the relevant writers for this article please explain why paper bag parties are a notable part of the history of African-Americans requiring its own article as opposed to being placed in another article?
Additional issues with this article, even beyond the issue of notability, is the actual content itself; as stated in the section, the Free African Americans section needs to be rewritten in a manner more suited for encyclopaedic content on paper bag parties as opposed to an opinion essay on the history of racism against African-Americans. And furthermore, the lead-in needs to be rewritten for much the same reason, since there is no logical reason why the concept of paper bag parties should directly lead into " larger issues of class and caste within the African-American population"; nor, for that matter, does any source suggest such a connection. These "larger issues" seem irrelevant for the immediate topic, and should be so removed from the page on paper bag parties and placed in a more appropriate article (African-American history seems an obvious destination for this information). Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of scholarly and popular sources attest to the existence of such parties. With some improvement this could be the main article for the "Brown paper bag test" section of Discrimination based on skin color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2013 (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.
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. LFaraone 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse_racism

AfDs for this article:
Reverse_racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTRS Gerntrash (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (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.
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. Discussions for merging content can happen at the talk page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Penalty

Ethnic Penalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a non notable Neologism which was created by an account with no other edits other than to promote Reza Hasmath's 2012 book, and his Neologism. . Hu12 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not sure how new a phrase has to be to still be considered a neologism, but I was able to find 13 articles on HighBeam that use the term (The Economist, Daily Mail, The Independent, Jerusalem Post) as well as six books on Questia and about 40 newspaper articles on NewsBank, almost all UK newspapers. The oldest reference I found was from 1994. - MrX 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or complete rewrite: term appears to be notable, but this is a bare rewrite of A Dictionary of Human Resource Management (2 rev ed.), see partial text here. Hairhorn (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Discrimination, the main article on the general concept. BTW is it always minorities that suffer an ethnic penalty? The article seems to be saying so. BigJim707 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term has been around for 20+ years and is widely used in commonwealth countries (I am a PhD candidate looking at this topic). Merging it to discrimination does not do justice to the term as it is more about non-discriminatory reasons, like not having the same social networks as non-minorities, and so forth. To answer BigJim's question, the ethnic penalty generally refers to visible ethnic minorities. The article has been edited to ensure hairhorn's concerns are addressed. Oxfsoc (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2013 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster sexism

Hipster sexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term was coined and defined a couple of months ago in an article by Allissa Quart on New York Magazine's website. It's basically something she just made up one day rather than a notable concept. It hasn't been picked up by scholars or analyzed independently by anyone. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reliable sources? Can you link to some of your results? What I found were occasional mentions, e.g. this senior thesis, along with the article it came from. If I've missed enough places where actual reliable sources discuss the concept I'd be happy to withdraw.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the HuffPo piece is just a reprint of the original NY Mag piece already cited in the article, the Slate piece merely provides a link to the article, and the Hindu Business Line piece uses the term but does not discuss it. Obviously the term is used a lot, but it's not discussed anywhere I can find outside of Quart's original article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster racism

Hipster racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This term was coined by Carmen Van Kerckhove in 2006. Since then it seems not to have been picked up at all by the scholarly community. The sources cited in the article, other than the ones by Van Kerckhove, don't use the term, let alone discuss it. Vivicka Greene is mentioned in one source (not in article) as a scholar studying "hipster racism," but that study doesn't seem to have translated into actual scholarly work on the concept. It's just past something someone made up one day, and there are not sources available to establish its notability. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not all articles need to have scholarly sources, only sufficiently reliable ones in the context. In this case, I think enough sources exist to justify an article on the topic. This article does have issues with NPOV, which I've tried to correct, but I don't think deletion is the right answer. (As an aside, as one of only a handful of editors to the article, I would have appreciated being notified of this AFD.) Robofish (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in France

Racism in France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very POV, and poor quality. RH - (rosscoolguy) (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 10 January 2013 (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.
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. (also withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of the Latin Woman

The Myth of the Latin Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (article recreated after PROD deletion). No independent references. The PROD reasons still apply: not a published book - available as a pdf download. Fails WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn with a bouquet to Tokyogirl79 for a magnificent WP:HEY save. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under G11 and G12 - tagged as such. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G12 especially. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whoa there. Despite the original state of the article, I'm finding multiple sources that discuss this book and multiple, multiple sources that relist the story. It's not as easy as saying that it's just some random story and that its availability as a download negates any potential notability. I've added some sources to the article and am finding more. One or two of the sources are trivial, but so far I'm finding plenty to suggest that it would pass WP:NBOOK via the first and fourth criteria.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I not only found several book sources (all of which appear to be academic texts, I will note), I found several instances where the story was re-published in various academic textbooks in general, as well as various links that show that the story is used in many classrooms. ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]) Removing this from Wikipedia would be a great disservice, I think, especially since sourcing does appear to exist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources added by TG. A single cursory search of Google Books shows a ton of sources. I don't understand how 3 people Speedily jumped to Delete without apparent research. This is a widely anthologized story used for teaching easily passing NBOOK #4. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok now understand the rush to delete after seeing other activity around article creator. Still, this one notable enough to Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2012 (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.

Discrimination Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Discrimination&oldid=669285436"