Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in the Southern United States

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 05:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Racism_in_the_Southern_United_States

Aside from the obvious grammatical problems and the fact that most of the information is random (Delta Music?) All of the information currently on this page is included under the entries for American slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, etc. This could be an interesting page, I guess, but it seems like it will always be redundant. If anyone has useful content to put here do it, but otherwise I don't see why we need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvis21 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup and expand. Andrew pmk 04:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Topic is obviously important, although possibly too broad for a single article. Cleanup and Expand works for now. Xoloz 04:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Cleanup and Expand. Amazed we didn't already have such an article. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:08, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• This is an extremelly important topic that deals with events that have shaped the culture of the entire United States. This could potentially become a very good article. Expand and Cleanup--EatAlbertaBeef 05:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cleanup and expand. Potential for encyclopedic article here. Capitalistroadster 05:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Cleanup and expand -CunningLinguist 09:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Could do with renaming though. Maybe "Race relations in the United States" ~~~~ 11:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep like it says, clean up! ConeyCyclone 17:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean. Hohokus 18:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Jinkleberries 19:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Rename to Racism in the US. "Race relations" is just an ephimism for racism :P Project2501a 20:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, "race relations" is not a euphemism for racism! RickK 22:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Race relations" is not simply an euphemism, but the term is sometimes used as one in some contexts. I think an argument over the semantics of this could take forever, and is probably of little value until the article is cleaned up Xoloz 04:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep: Valid topic. Needs additional info concerning history of political compromises whereby blatant civil rights inequities were allowed to fester, contributing to the cultural phenomenon of ingrained racism in the South. Ombudsman 21:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Cleanup and expand, the topic is very important . Falphin 01:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I oppose the move. I don't see whats wrong with the title Racism in the United States. Racial relations in the Southern United States is a much broader topic than what this article will cover. Falphin 15:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, expand, and move to Race relations in the United States (or southern United States) which I believe is a better title. -- Joolz 02:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with BD2412 since racism is especially common in the south; even today. --SuperDude 02:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though the need for a cleanup is obvious, it's certainly a topic deserving an article of its own. -- Captain Disdain 03:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — valid topic, but I have no issue with a redirect as suggested above. Shouldn't actually be the southeastern U.S., even though it is commonly referred to as "The South"? — RJH 16:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Texas? This huge, slaveholding, Confederate non-Eastern state is the valid reason for maintaining the common name. Xoloz 05:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This minor issue demonstrates the problem I have with the article name. Any border you draw around a particular aspect of racism will encompass a different South. Better to work on those dozens of more coherent articles (Slavery in Texas would be an excellent model). Dystopos 03:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge factual content to other articles. As it stands, the name of the article presents a POV problem. Racist policies, practices, conflicts, images, etc are more verifiable than Racism per se. (i.e. would we write an article about "Pessimism in the Baltics" or "Apathy in the Swiss Alps"?) The ways in which these polices, practices, conflicts, images, etc. were and are experienced in the American South is covered in several articles and requires a certain amount of POV to aggregate into a blanket topic. It might work better as a category, though. Dystopos 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia might very well have an article on "Apathy in the Swiss Alps," if the Swiss had ever codified mandatory apathy into law, as Jim Crow laws did. I'm not saying the article title is perfect, but I see no reason to rename before the article is expanded. Xoloz 05:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Until the article is expanded it has no value at all. As I said before, the codification of racism into law is verifiable. The racism that brought such things into being is more difficult to restrict to verifiable info or limit to the Southern U.S. Dystopos 13:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that racism de facto is more difficult to verify than racism de jure; however, racism de fact is also verifiable (in oral histories, cultural histories, documentary film, and scientific studies, etc.) To deny de facto racism merely because it is harder, but possible, to document would be a gross injustice. The article is in serious need of cleanup, but the topic is too crucial to allow deletion of the article. Xoloz 18:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think we agree in principle. The important thing is the clean-up. I see the name of the article as a potential obstacle to that effort which might be better to undertake in other articles. But that is only my opinion - it should be left to the editors who do the work. What do you think of the idea of making this a Category name instead of an article name? Dystopos 19:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree that this is a strong possibility in the future. Even in my initial vote, I feared this was too expansive a topic for a single article. If this is made a category, though, questions of semantics (racism, racist, racialist, race relations, etc.) might spark the same debate that has begun here in earnest. I think the issue premature till the article expands. Xoloz 04:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I wish I knew where to begin. It sounds like it was written by a third grader. Dystopos 05:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• MergeThis article is too eclectic to represent much of a start on this subject. Merge to an article on "The South," which should exist, but doesn't. :ThaddeusFrye 08:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC). Comment - (Southern United States) Dystopos 13:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, expand. Secretlondon 13:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep, if the article discusses ALL racism (i.e, Japanese concentration camps, Cuban detainees, racism experienced by Whites (i.e. trying to "act" Black), etc...
• (Unsigned comment by Antares33712)Xoloz 18:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I understand some of those concerns, but fail to understand how "Whites...trying to 'act' Black" is racism, or even exactly what that means. Xoloz 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep this is a nomination for wp:cotw, and they think it should be renamed Racism in the United States. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a plan. Not sure what it would hurt to delete the current mess, though. Dystopos 02:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.