Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing White Women Syndrome

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 05:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing White Women Syndrome

Fascinating - perhaps true - but is it notable?? --Doc (?) 22:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC) **apologies to all - I misread this. Nomination withdrawn - keep speedily if poss - very sorry --Doc (?) 22:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep True and notable (lots of google hits) Forbsey 22:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NPOV Passes the google test, but may not be NPOV Alba 22:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- a common accusation against the media with no particular political bias behind it. Very notable. Haikupoet 05:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Appears to be a notable term. JamesBurns 09:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Media bias: Noteworthy, but just one example of the many forms of media bias. Also primarily a phenomenon in US journalism. Peter Grey 16:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Media bias is already too long. Pages should be kept to a reasonable size. CanadianCaesar 22:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well documented phenomenon, by now. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I understand that my article may have rubbed few. But it's the truth. I feel that we should address this controversial issue. I mean we have millions of missing people. Why are we devoting time to this type of news coverage to one certain person? I seen it through Elizabeth Smart and Nataliee Hollaway. Too much fingerpointing and devoted coverage to something that Amber Hagerman a 9-year old who is white go so much media coverage the United States Congress passed the controversial "AMBER" alert. The media is bias, look at CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Each channel was devoted to at least one major story that has coverage on a pretty white woman. So why don't we address this? Thank you for addressing the situation. Also feel free to edit and discuss this sitaution. Feel free to adjust it to Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome. This topic is something of consideration LILVOKA the creator of this article 15:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Important example of media bias; great idea for an article. Since that article is long, I wouldn't merge there... but I would rename to Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome, which is in fact the term that Malkin used (urrgh, citing her as an authority makes my skin crawl, but at least it makes it less neologistic), and has 86 Google hits to "Missing White Women Syndrome"'s 33. Dcarrano 07:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is a major reason people do not watch CNN, MSNBC, and the so called Fox News Channel. Relevant form of non-important news news media bias that is a result of these 24 hour news channels trying to fill time and get ratings. I recall when these networks actually had news, well maybe not Fox News! -- Spotteddogsdotorg 12:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR, neologism, racist shit.  Grue  19:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Bullshit. If you weren't a liberal colorblind pussy you'd notice the truth in this article. Keep, but cleanup and possibly rename. --FatherGuidoSarducci 24.251.143.179

• Keep - actual thing and SOOooo annoying.--Deglr6328 03:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. POV. Almafeta 07:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but find a different name and have this term redirect. This isn't media bias but more where we crave light, heart warming or heart breaking stories over real news. It's easier to listen to news of a pretty, missing women or a kitten stuck in a tree than it is to listen to stories of starving children. We should probably write an article on the subject as a whole and have this included.
• The name is sort of a POV neologism, but the fact that a dozen of these missing white women have their own Wikipedia articles already tends to suggest to me that an article is in order. Keep and rename to something more suitable. Eliot 20:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps under a different name. --Rogerd 02:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Needs a lot of work though. 80.203.115.12 18:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Once we decide it's staying, Wikipedians will bring it up to par. The Peacemaker 06:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps under a different name - little black kids get the same in the UK - David Gerard 12:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is probably more of an american phenomenon

• Keep And link it to media hijacking Muzzle 13:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is opinion page stuff. - Tεxτurε 14:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This article accurately describes a phenomenon that is all-too-prevalent in today's American news media. Atlant 15:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Interesting, relevant. I have heard this refered to before in regular watercooler conversation. An explanation of an un-nPOV can be a nPOV. It could have a less specific name. --Darkfred 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Interesting and well documented. --Daemon8666 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 02:04, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.