Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Cop (second nomination)

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, clear consensus that article violates WP:NOR. Nandesuka 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Cop

Delete This should NOT be on Wikipedia. I signed on specifically so I could get rid of it. A friend's acquaintance wants to prove the site is useless, and had tried writing fake articles before. For some reason this one stuck. It was written as a joke - it's already received far more serious treatment than was ever deserved. --Mirrorstone 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Note This is effectively the nominating statement. I have moved it to the top and fixed up the nomination to the standard format. Also this article survived a previous AfD discussion as no consensus just a few days ago here Gwernol 21:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mirrorstone, as nominator please list the Wikipedia policies that you believe this article is in breach of. Thanks, Gwernol 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm new to Wikipedia, but so near as I can tell, this article violates policy in that (1) it's based on original research, and (2) it's racist. While the "black cop" is an archetype (meaning that many such movies and TV shows have them), it is not, to the best of my knowledge, a stereotype. The examples listed usually play into the "cop" stereotype in general, not a variation of it. And calling attention to the colour of any police officers is, in my opinion, wrong. . --Mirrorstone 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Legitimate article that is growing naturally, I have no idea why MrBlondNYC has decided to put this up for deletion a second time so soon. I shouldn't be the one starting this debate either, where's his justification? --Stukov 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• User:Mrblondnyc did not nominate this for AfD. I have fixed up the nomination which had been left unfinished by User:Mirrorstone . Gwernol 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Evidently this joke tuned some wikipedia editors onto a real phenomenon. The primary issue in the previous AfD was sources. There's the Ethical Spectacle article, which isn't much, but enough.--Kchase T 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete SiobhanHansa is right about the remaining source. Without good sources, this is original research. It may be real, but it needs sources to stay, and a concerted effort to find them hasn't turned up the necessary ones.--Kchase T 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The way this article is now, it still isn't very encyclopedic. The Ethical Spectacle article is an opinion piece on a vanity site (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, just that it's no different from a blog). One might look at the Black Cop article and say 'yeah, I've seen black cops on TV, it must be a real phenomenon' and you might be right. There might be something real there. But if there is it hasn't been shown from reliable sources in the article, so it's still original research. --SiobhanHansa 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First, it should be noted that User:Stukov is the creator of this article so his vote should not count. Now, I'll just repeat my reasoning from the first AfD: Does everytime a black actor play a cop automatically make them a character type? Or does the "black cop" have to exhibit certain traits? I could maybe see gruff black lieutenants or captains being considered a "type" (48 Hrs., Starsky and Hutch, Homicide: Life on the Street) but even that's reaching a little bit. But just any cop who's black regardless of personality or rank is automatically a stereotype? Any black person with a badge is a stereotype? Come on. I could make the page "Black Doctor" and list just as many examples of black actors that played doctors. MrBlondNYC 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Stukov has as much right to express his opinion here as anyone. Being creator of an article does not mean your vote does not count. Gwernol 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion, not a vote; and it is not who is making an argument that matters. It is whether an argument is a well-reasoned argument that is based upon our policies and guidelines that matters. The argument that you propound makes no mention of, and doesn't even address, our policies and guidelines, for example. Kchase02's and SiobhanHansa's arguments above, on the other hand, address the issues of verifiability and original research, and the sources that underpin the article. Uncle G 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless we plan to have all sorts of lists of racial/profession combinations in media showing up. LactoseTI^T 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If they are verifiable stereotypes that are not original research, then indeed Wikipedia should have them. Editors have pointed to a source that appears to document this stereotype. Uncle G 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A search of "Black Cop Stereotype" gets numerous hits on Googles and several informative articles on the subject of this particular film archetype. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/188958.php is one such site. 74.120.134.192 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This reference does not substantiate the article. As with the Ethical Spectacle, this piece is not from a reliable source. It's from the Ace of Spades HQ, a self-published political blog with a heavy handed agenda. The blog posting doesn't mention black cops. It's about large black women stereotypes on TV, or more particularly about PC outbursts against large black women stereotypes. A comment on the blog mentions black cops, but WP:Reliable sources specifically states that comments left on blogs should not be used as primary or secondary sources (as well stating that self-published blogs are generally not reliable). While a Google search for Black cop stereotype turns up a lot of hits, most of the ones I looked at were about real life race discrimination by police officers.--SiobhanHansa 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Speaking of guidelines, Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article is part of the guidelines regarding AfD. OK? I did skip the first part of my comments in the first nom which was: "Original research, lack of reliable sources and most of all ill-defined". The Ethcial Spectacle, though well-written, is a person's vanity page. The Narc review is from a blog and the "black cop" is mentioned very briefly in one sentence. The link provded above is an article about the "sassy black woman" stereotype and is also from a person's vanity site. The "black cop" stereotype is only mentioned in posts by readers responding to the person's comments on it. From this it is apparent that some people, myself included, feel that the black police captain is a type. But there has yet to be a reliable source about this. MrBlondNYC 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:OR and WP:RS to begin with, is poorly scoped (e.g. gruff black looey example) and bizarrely attributes the beginning of the phenomenon to 1988 (a role that was, IIRC, in fact colorblind casting). --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Can see no reason for the nomination--Tess Tickle 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. fails WP:OR and WP:RS. --Madchester 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research per SiobhanHansa. Gwernol 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Based on the lengthy list of characters that meet this perceived movie archetype, I believe it warrants surviving a second nomination. 74.120.134.192 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Note this user has already expressed their opinion here. Gwernol 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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.