Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial Discrimination On Wikipedia

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, WP:SNOW -- many thanks to User:Bosstopher for rewriting the article so it's no longer just a rant. Closing without prejudice to a possible merge. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Discrimination On Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a classic opinion essay, see WP:NOR. It's poorly written, and largely duplicative of Criticism of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article is still in its infant stages. I believe that once other contributions are made it will be a strong stand alone article in the same manner as Gender bias on Wikipedia which is linked to Criticism of Wikipedia CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with CrazyAces489. Remove sections that aren't written in the WP:NPOV, and it will be on its way to being a well written article. Also, a merge with Criticism of Wikipedia may be necessary. --ABCDEFAD (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia, most of this article is POV, and is therefore just a worse version of Criticism of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename I've WP:TNTd the article and rewrote the whole thing from scratch, due to the previous version being chock full of irrelevant information and BLP violations. I'm fairly certain the article as it stands meets GNG, but it should probably be renamed something like "Racial bias in Wikipedia" Bosstopher (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Racial bias on Wikipedia. Seems to be enough coverage by RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both (racial bias and gender bias) to Criticism of Wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉ 23:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Padenton, these articles can be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia, there does not need to be a separate article for every issue on Wikipedia. (I can only imagine the number of ads the WMF would have to run to upgrade the servers to handle it). Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of wikipedia article is ridiculously long. The last thing we should do is bloat it with even more information. Articles on specific issues are necessary. Bosstopher (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia - Admittingly Criticism of Wikipedia is long but personally I don't think we need articles on every detail here so why not shove it there instead. –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia - this article is not so large that it can't be merged, and let's be honest; half of what's there right now doesn't actually belong there, or at the very least, would be inappropriate for the Criticism article. There aren't so many reliable sources saying that Wikipedia has a racial bias that a separate article must be had. Also, having only one source backing up some pretty hefty claims is not a good way to go about things. As a minimum, this article needs to be renamed to Racial bias on Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the article Racial bias on Wikipedia as suggested by two users. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. I believe there were WP:POINTy motives in starting the article, but regardless, it's a topic better served on the criticism article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eh. The rewritten version is an improvement. If we're going to have a gender bias article, I guess we might as well have a racial bias article, too. They both seem to be well-sourced and notable enough to survive at AfD. If people want to start up merge discussions on the appropriate talk pages, maybe they could get consensus there. I don't think we need one monstrous Criticism article. These are valid spinoffs in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge Not only is Criticism of Wikipedia a far too bloated article, this article covers more than just criticism. It provides theories that explain racial discrepancies and ways of tackling racial discrepancies. This isnt just a straight forward criticism article and neither is the criticism article.Bosstopher (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia per Lukeno94 above. It was initially more or less a repost of Discrimination on Wikipedia, a rant about Wikipedia in general, which I nominated for speedy deletion A10, and User:NawlinWiki deleted. User:Bosstopher's complete re-write is vastly better than the first draft, but it now pretty much says all that need be said on the subject, in three paragraphs. Per User:Niteshift36 above, there seem to be WP:POINTy motives in starting the article: four days ago the article's creator nominated Crispus Attucks for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crispus Attucks. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am unsure of Pointy Motives. I actually think a lot of different articles are noteworthy. WP's guidelines were telling me he isn't as little is known about him and he is known for a single purpose. Possibly could have been merged into Boston Massacre. This article actually had a ton of sources including Forbes, Whitehouse.gov, and the NY Times. Which proved notability. There was also an article on Gender Bias on Wikipedia. This showed me that this was a possible good stand alone topic. I was surprised that such a huge site as wikipedia with so many editors didn't already have this article on it. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neutrally written and well sourced article. I see no problem in having a separate article on every issue on Wikipedia, as long as those issues pass WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:04, 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.