Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Genocide (theory) (2nd 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Genocide (theory)[edit]

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

Page previously deleted. Currently stub with little to no content. Poorly written. Previously voted "weak keep" on nomination last month, but nothing's improved... in fact it's worse. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wait, hang on. What happened to the article? What happened to the previous revisions prior to the 15th of Jan. -Portesamo217 (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted previously (see 1). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted without discussion or consensus? -Portesamo217 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it was deleted as part of WP:BAN. Use who created it was banned. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note the consensus in the previous discussion if anyone wants to raise issues over GNG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Genocide (theory). Ethically ^(Yours) 15:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the difference between white genocide and Holocaust revisionism or 9/11 truthers is those conspiracy theories receive significant coverage in reliable sources. The previous incarnation of the article only had one academic source, which mentioned "white genocide" in passing. The only other reference was unverifiable (a book of conspiracies by Richard Roeper, of all people.) The new sources indicate the Stop White Genocide Project is just copy-pasting a mantra and astroturfing the Internet. Yes, people believe it; yes, there are a handful message boards where neo-nazis discuss the impending doom of the white race; no, it is not notable. Blackguard 00:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first two sources are routine. These [1][2][3] state that there is no White Genocide. These [http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/can-whites-escape-post-mandela-bloodbath/][4][5] Do not explicitly mention the term "White genocide" at all in the body of the articles, although the last one includes it in its headline. If this is notable, then it's by the skin of its teeth, and we're left with the little stub of an article that we have now. I would suggest that the content relating to South Africa go to an appropriate article relating to South Africa race relations and the petition mentions could go to the Stormfront article (as Vice credited them with spreading the petition), if the talk pages of those articles agree that these events are notable enough to get mentions.LM2000 (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New Idea? Merge/add to white supremacy articles? This "White Genocide" fringe theory seems like it is mostly confined to white nationalist and white supremacist circles and people associated with them. So perhaps a better idea here might be to give a mention to the "white genocide" theory on one of the pages White nationalism or White supremacy, then make this a redirect to the appropriate page. Note that just because something may be WP:NN and so cannot have its own article, that doesn't necessarily preclude a mention of it in some other article. Whaddya think? mike4ty4 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to improve the wording for the heck of it... mike4ty4 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Describing people protesting against genocide as "supremacist" makes Wikipedia look very silly. 87.113.72.77 (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one of the white supremacist articles seems like an better alternative. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely referenced topic in mainstream media and growing in importance and usage. If Wikipedia fails to define it, many other more dubious sources will. 84.93.179.46 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's purpose is not to "define" things; rather, merely to report on what is already out there. mike4ty4 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge this idea does seem to be one that only exists in white supremacist groups. If it is a theory of theirs then it belongs on page covering that topic. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White Nationalism or delete. This is a WP:FRINGE theory that does not have mainstream acceptance. It could possibly be discussed as a belief in White Nationalist groups. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this appears to be a growing issue of concern with even Russian President Vladimir Putin having spoken about immigration policies leading to the eradication of the original peoples of Europe.rt.com news Wikipedia can't hope to keep itself relevant by allowing censorship. 84.203.178.114 (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not censorship; rather, it's a matter of notability and the existence of reliable sources to be able to support a WP article. In particular, what is needed to get notability in the sense of Wikipedia is that one must be able to find multiple reliable sources discussing this topic specifically. Especially like some scholarly articles or something like that on the "Theory of White Genocide" -- if such exist, that would be good material on which to base a WP article. Brief mentions and "innuendo" in news articles and political figures' quips do not constitute the kind of reliable, comprehensive sources required to write a neutral, verifiable, unoriginal research, comprehensive Wikipedia article. mike4ty4 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2014 (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.