Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White people

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 Keep. While nominating an article to spare people's feelings is an ostensibly noble aim, it goes against the aim of creating an encyclopedia. Such debate as there is about promoting one agenda over another should be done on the Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White people

White people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nominating for DeletionReason:How is this page notable? Their has been so many hurt feelings and strong reactions to this white people,black people articles. i dont think black people are very pleased with been putting in to a certain category just because they are black, and the same for white people. Their are more people who wants to delete this sort of pages then the opposit, and that is what sthis Keep or delete voting will prove. --Matrix17 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete because of the racist way and quite unnecessary way theese articles has been written. i mean is it necessary to have articles on blacks and white people?? i dont think so anyway.--Matrix17 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - just a note, a nomination connotes an automatic delete. --Dennisthe2 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And see: Encyclopedia. "An encylopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." White people contains lots of information about a subject that is certainly not trivial, due to historical and modern reasons. Lukas19 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: i dont agee with you i think that for example the black pople page points out that african people cook and do their foods by hunting and then using sticks. and that white people are supreme over all others . but thats my opinion. i dont see any use in the fact that this pages just cause arguments between all people here. and thats actually all it does cause arguments and hurt feelings--Matrix17 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no such comment which suggests "white people are supreme over all others" in White people article, except maybe historical definitions section of the article. If your feelings get hurt by that, you have so much work to do. You may have to delete half this encyclopedia. There are entries about wars, disasters, tragedies, emotional novels, and lots of stuff, both historical and modern which may cause hurt feelings. Lukas19 20:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - you might want to see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING when considering that for an argument. --Dennisthe2 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: No you dont have to delete half of the wikipedia work. is just this in particular articles black,white and caucasians and so on people articles that gets so mutch discussions and people GET hurt over them.if you cant see that,then thats you problem--Matrix17 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

People get hurt over many things. My throat hurt when I had cold. Should I nominate Common cold article for AfD? Lukas19 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Its just that sort of comments that maes this pages so unnecessary comments from people who just cant see that people behind the computers reading actually get hurt or atleast upset. like you lukas making fun of a problem that has always existed. the way people always try to categorize eachother.and you making fun of this should be asahmed.--Matrix17 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very strong delete: We don't need wikipedia trying to tell us who is white. What the hell does light skin color mean? Light compared to who? What is European ancestry? How much European ancestry and how far back? Europe is just an arbitrary landmass. There's very little genetic about being from Europe in particular and light skin isn't exclusive to Europe anyway. This article contains no real facts just opinions. Does race even exist? If so, I thought caucasians were the race; if so we already have an article about them. An article about white people is just pure nonsense. Iseebias 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. An encyclopedia should not delete information and historical accounts on what has been and what is. This and other similar articles are not putting a value to a certain skin color or "race" but only describing the cultural heritage and history of mankind - with all the bad sides to it. If this article is deleted then we're on a slippery slope and it could lead to historical revisionism, much worse than the proposer is suggesting. Closing the eyes won't make any suggested problems disappear - only enlightenment can take care of that. Strangnet 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No having this article itself will lead to historical revisionism because extreme POVs on either side will selectively quote selectively chosen historians to push their POVs and since most people don't bother to read history books, they just get all their information from wikipedia, history will indeed be rewritten Iseebias 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On that basis, several articles about the nazi's warcrimes, racial hygiene, holocaust and similar should also be deleted. If they're taken out of context they could also be misused and misquoted. Just because people have heavily slanted POVs out there is one reason why articles like these should be there to inform and point to the facts in its sources. History is ugly in many cases, but deleting the accounts of them won't make them go away and the following generations won't learn from the previous one's mistakes. --Strangnet 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia only works when editors work together towards a common goal. It does not produce quality results in controversial articles because controversy attracts extreme opinions and when editors become polarized they work against one another's interests which gives rise to editorial chaos. Articles that have required repeated protection do not lend themselves to the stability wikipedia strives for and should be deleted. In most cases no article at all is better than unstable, and thus uncredible one Iseebias 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The rationale for deleting this article is exceedingly flawed, verging on bad faith. This is a bonafide subject with encyclopedic value. --Ezeu 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. See WP:NOT#CENSORED as a rebuttal to claims that it is offensive. And whether or not the concept is valid, it's well-known, so we should have an article. It's not Wikipedia's buisness to decide what is and isn't valid. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - To repeat what I have said for this nominator's previous AfD initiations: I don't understand the nominator's reasoning at all, and see absolutely no violation of Wikipedia policy in letter or spirit with this topic. Nomination appears to be a case of unsupported WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is no reason for exclusion. ◄Zahakiel► 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Maybe we should delete Fred Phelps because he hurts so many people's feelings too, hm? JuJube 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Come on, the problems at this article boil down to pretty much a lone user. The apparent POV OR & undue weight doesn't mean that the concept of "white people" isn't eligible for this encyclopedia. I encourage you to just help neutralize the article and keep it focused. The Behnam 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as per the previous two noms. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep zzzzz Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There's already a merge discussion open for this. It has a small issue with POV, but it's nothing a cleanup can't help. --Dennisthe2 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per WP:WIW. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Jimmy Wales did not invent wikipedia so people could spend all their time fussing about who is black and who is white. Wikipedia is for real topics with real encyclopedic value. Why don't you guys edit real articles on math or science instead of arguing over who's white and who's black. (Personal attack deleted.) Gottoupload 00:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. No good reason given to delete this article. Wikipedia would be a sad excuse for an encyclopedia without an article on this subject. --Lukobe 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Odd how the majority of the "speedy keeps" have had little or nothing to do with the article in question. I wonder if they are making snap decisions here without actually having had a look at the sort of POV pushing racism on this article? Defending something they have not actually read. This article is certainly damaging the integrity of Wikipedia, and claiming that it is a valid subject for an encyclopaedia is not the same as claiming that the content is of any value. If it is impossible for the article to become of any value because it attracts people with extreme POVs to push, then what exactly is the purpose of the article? The value of an article is no measured by the utilty of it's title, it is measured by the impartiality of it's contents. Unless more good faith editors are prepared to spend their time on this sort of difficult and depressing article, then it is never going to be anything other than a very deep and very sad reflection on the lack of credibility Wikipedia has. This article currently makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of racist nutters, but if that's how you want the project to be perceived then please go on defending this article, even when you do not know what is actually contained within it. Alun 01:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be bad. I will make no judgement on an article which is in meditation, because frivolous Arbcom cases are soo not worth my time, but it may be. However, it is certainly a valid topic, so it should just be cleaned up. We can't delete articles because they attract POV pushers. -Amarkov moo! 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh really? Why not? An article may look good in theory but if experience has proven that the subject is too controversial to be maintained at a level of quality, then of course we should delete it Iseebias 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see why not if a vote for deletion were to be carried. Maybe the fact that Wikipedia is prepared to allow this sort of nonsense, just because the subject is allegedly a "valid topic", just goes to show that it is as fundamentally flawed as it's critics claim. Alun 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It is "fundamentally flawed" to accurately report the widely held concept of people who are white? By what concievable standard is that flawed? Oh, and no, being too controversial is not, and can not, be a reason for deletion. If things begin to be deleted for being too controversial, I'm quite sure most everyone will leave. -Amarkov moo! 01:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Way to assume WP:AGF; something I will no longer be doing with you. JuJube 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It is "fundamentally flawed" to accurately report the widely held concept of people who are white? SO are you claiming that the article in it's current form is accurate? Because I'm claiming that it is fundamentally flawed to give a POV and inaccurate view. Alun 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - As an administrator pointed out above, when speedily closing the Black people AfD, (which was nominated for identical reasons) "Controversy is not a reason to delete." Removing an article requires far more substantial an argument than, "It might cause problems," "Its content has issues," or, "I don't like this topic." In the opinion of a few editors, the articles are "unstable," but there is no policy that can possibly be followed to justify the removal of content simply because of trolls, vandals and politically driven soapboxers. ◄Zahakiel► 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If an article is controversial to the point where it can not function, to the point where quality editors are being driven out by POV pushers, to the point where there's constant chaos, incivility, and requires page protection repeatedly, and is damaging wikipedia's credibility, then I think that's perhaps the best reason of all to delete. Never forget that a paramount wikipedia value is stability. Just as stability causes articles to become feature articles, articles that have demonstrated an inability to achieve stability and cooperation should be deleted. Wikipedia policy states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Experience tells us that some articles are too polarizing for this ideal to be maintained in practice, and thus thier very existence violates the spirit of wikipedia Iseebias 01:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • In that case we should delete all articles about European countries east of the Iron Curtain. JuJube 02:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't know. I haven't studied articles on eastern European countries. But I have studied articles dealing with race, and I've seen a consistent pattern of editorial disorder. Iseebias 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
              • WP:AN/I is quite frequently the sounding board for editors in conflict over countries like Hungary, Romania and Azerbaijan. On that note, all countries in the Middle East should be deleted under this logic as well. JuJube 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Again I haven't studied middle eastern articles and thus will not speculate outside my experience. But with respect to articles on blacks and whites, experience has repeatedly demonstrated that they tend towards chaos, incivility, editorial disintegration, and POV pushing. Experience has repeatedly demonstrated that they are impossible to maintain to wikipedia's standards so how much longer should we induldge such hopeless topics before pulling the plug? At some point we have to accept that certain topics simply don't work in wikipedia Iseebias 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Comment - Disruptive editors should be warned, and then disciplined. POV statements should be removed, and controversial statements should be properly sourced. You don't delete content from Wikipedia as long as it satisfies the criteria of verifiability and notability. We can certainly verify that a subset of humanity refers to itself as "white," and the amount of problems you've mentioned with the entry certainly speaks to its notability. Experience should be a catalyst for growth, not defeatism, and you don't quit doing something just because it's "hard." Editors who find their stress level rising over a particular entry should simply edit less emotionally charged material and leave the matter to those willing to continue - you don't try to cover up temporary and apparent failures by erasing the evidence. This is the way Wikipedia has worked and continues to work. ◄Zahakiel► 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • All excellent points. You have convinced me. Alun 02:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • Certain topics are simply a magnate for disruptive editors and when one is removed ten new ones show up. There's an endly supply of notable verifiable content but opinionated editors selectively choose only that which promotes their agenda and find excuses for removing alternative content. People end up wasting days and weeks arguing on the talk page. Edit wars ensue, pages get protected, editors get blocked or simply leave in frustation, articles get tagged, good faith editors are told to hang in there, and the cycle continues endlessly. At what point do we say enough is enough? We've tried this topic on wikipedia, we've given it opportunity after opportunity to succeed, and it simply has failed. Why can't we just admit that not all topics lend themselves to the wikipedia process and confine our efforts to those that do? I think editors that are claiming this article can work, despite the massive evidence to the contrary, have a responsibility to stay here and make sure it does work. It's very easy to throw ideals around, much harder to maintain an article 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, in the face of numerous conflicting interest groups Iseebias 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • I don't think you have understood my point above. This is not about ideals, it is about maintaining policies. You have all the freedom in the world to give up hope... I am not going to try to convince you to keep trying to do what you have been doing. But this does not mean that we must deny others the opportunity to make the attempt because of your point of view. Wikipedia works by consensus. I think it might help, though, for you to realize that it is not your personal responsibility "to maintain an article 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, in the face of numerous conflicting interest groups." That's what the community is for. ◄Zahakiel► 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • My understanding was that wikipedia works by maintaining standards. I agree that there's a consensus that this topic has a right to exist, but I urge people to stop trying to reinvent a broken wheel. There is value in learning from the mistakes of others and policy needs to be flexible Iseebias 02:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • Certainly, but if you take a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, you will find that right under "Wikipedia policies" (the table on the upper right) you find, "Article standards," and then the list of policies I have mentioned. In other words, the standards are maintained by the policies, not the experiences of individual editors, regardless of how valid those experiences may be. Policies may be flexible, yes, when they come into conflict with consensus, but that is not the case here. I am not trying to trivialize the difficulty that has existed with this and other articles, and I do believe (as you seem to as well) that "race" has far more to do with society than anything empirical, but it is a notable, verifiable social construct, and as such must be discussed in any legitimate body of knowledge (i.e., an encyclopedia) with as much neutrality and care as can be. Again, if you find it difficult or feel burned out on this entry, take a step back; take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, and let others fight the vandals for a while. In any event, I think I have represented my position as clearly as I can, so I'll just let the votes tell the tale. ◄Zahakiel► 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                      • So how much time does wikipedia give an article to come up to quality standards before deciding to delete it? Iseebias 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                        • Forever. Wikipedia is a work in progress. --Ezeu 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                          • Well if demonstrated repeated failure isn't a reason to delete an article I don't know what is. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and based on past behavior I see no reason to be optimistic about this article's prognosis. But you Ezeu obviously do, and so I expect to see you here on a daily basis working to make it better Iseebias 03:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
                            • Above statement is an instant failure to WP:AGF. Furthermore, your "Demonstrated repeated failure" by itself violates WP:NPOV. What can get deleted? The two big ones are WP:OR and WP:N, with subsets including WP:BIO, for examples. George Leung 05:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep; nominator appears to be violating WP:POINT --Mhking 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep at least, and if not, Move or Merge to caucasians. Comments. Are we certain Matrix17 is not working for NAACP? In any case, you know what: who cares if he report this to NAACP. This article, unlike caucasian race, actually explore the perceptions of each regions with Caucasians. I think this is a valid article. As for Caucasian race, which is also going AFD and nominated by Matrix17, that's a even more valid article if not more. May be a bit better rewording, but nothing a move can't solve. And you know what? The exact reason why we have racism is because, aside from people who are out right racist, is also because we have people who decided to do a young Malcom X and just accuse everything that is unfavorable to them as racist. And no, political correctness, which is clearly what the nominator trying to do, just does not work, unless you actually believe that by erasing essential but ugly knowledges will help things out. Then again, in that case, why don't we take out male and female? Why don't we take out fat and thin? Oh yeah, one more thing: the nominator clearly violated WP:NPOV and [{WP:POINT]].George Leung 03:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to assume he works for NAACP. Refrain from unsubstantiated accusations. --Ezeu 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep These "White people" seem to be an important group today per 1,260,000 Google hits for them, exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirror sites. There should be ample reliable sources to meet WP:ATT, not even counting the present 85 references in the article. It has been an important legal and racial construct in various countries. It has been a census category in the U.S. for over 200 years. Edison 03:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Reasons mentioned above. I suggest getting a valid reason for deleting an article rather than hurt feelings. — Moe 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per consensus. We already have an article on race. Any useful content in this article (though I have yet to see anything useful) can be merged into that as per WP:Avoid duplication Wantednewlook 05:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What consensus, if I may ask? --Ezeu 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The reason for deletion nomination doesn't go well with me. utcursch | talk 05:57, 19 March 2007 (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.