Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White flight in the United States

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. Consensus is that a content fork is not needed or, in this form, appropriate. Sandstein 05:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White flight in the United States[edit]

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

This article was a fork created by copy-paste of portions of White flight before consensus for any such split had been formed on the talk page of that article. No reason was given for separating off this content, the original usage of the term, from the original article and the editing history has been lost. The fork was created by a new account, possibly an alternative account of another user, who has not engaged in discussions of any kind. The term "white flight" was originally applied to migration within the US and has been used more widely since, often in slightly different circumstances. The article duplicates content from White flight, with almost no changes and various inconsistencies resulting as a consequence. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. This article (and the way it was created) is problematic. It is clear that the creator has moved large parts of another article to this new one without discussing the move at all. I am not sure that this, in itself, is reason to delete the new article, but neither is a deletion debate the place to discuss that. As for the article, it is full of original research and not a little POV - but that, too, is not a reason to delete it. Is it possible to delete the article for now, discuss its move at Talk:White flight to get consensus whether a breakup of the article is warranted? Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete this article; return discussion to Talk page of White flight. As one of the editors of the original White flight, I thought that the article should be limited to the US (and renamed), as that is where the term historically originated, and issues related to it in the US do not necessarily apply to contemporary situations in other nations. Others think that because journalists have adopted "white flight" in recent decades as a catchy title to apply to any movement of people of European descent, the article should follow them and contain examples of contemporary "white flight" (as named by journalists) worldwide, regardless of causes. The examples included showed that there was ethnic succession going on in cities. There were problems with OR and POV in that article as well, and no consensus had been reached on what to do with the other material.Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of White flight in the US certainly warrants its own article alone. I added about 21,000 k of content pretty easily. The after effects of White flight in the US have not even been touched upon as yet (all arguable, mind you) - the effect on US urban growth & planning, transport policy, gated communities, and the link to the rise of US gun ownership as a political/social movement in the US. Lamsfield (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the fork, Lamsfield (a) has not seen fit to discuss anything concerning the article on Talk:White flight or any other talk pages and (b) has added original research to the new article, with unsourced claims concerning white flight. Since white flight concerns almost entirely a concept restricted to the United States, the only solution at present seems to be to delete the new article, possibly rename the old one and then discuss where the non-US material might be put, if it is decided that it should be moved. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:FORK Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." It's not clear whether this spinoff has legs or not but, as new material has been added, deletion would be disruptive to further discussion and editing. If merger is the result of such discussion then this action is not performed by deletion and so the material should be kept to allow ordinary editing to take place. Warden (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article White flight concerns the phenomenon in the United States where the term was coined and where it has a precise meaning, as discussed above. The "new material" added on the US in the fork article is all WP:OR.The material has been copy-pasted from other wikipedia articles on demography and interpreted by the editor Lamsfield (talk · contribs) as "white flight". But there is no support for that interpretation from reliable secondary sources. Edits adding that kind of contentious unsourced original research are disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no reason this article should be separate from the general article on White Flight which mainly deals with US anyway.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 2 July 2011 (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.