Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White guilt

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 no consensus. A Train^talk 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White guilt

Completely lacks sources; seems to be entirely OR. Op-ed piece. Fails WP:ATT. Jtrainor 01:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. ➪HiDrNick! 01:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might actually be a real topic [1]. But this current article might not be that useful. --W.marsh 01:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a link to a journal article that (I think) verifies the first paragraph. Will try to expand a bit if I can. For now, mark me down as a keep, or redirect to White privilege (sociology) as a related concept (according to the source). --W.marsh 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have a look at ISBN 0275960544, page 133 et seq. of ISBN 1841690457, page 277 of ISBN 0415903661, page 110 of ISBN 0742529274, and pages 357 et seq. of ISBN 0415949645 (which discusses the subject in relation to Australian politics). Uncle G 13:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is probably a real topic, but the question returns of whether this is the right name. DGG 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete canonical original research. As noted above, a proper topic might be lurking underneath, but it's deep underneath. Very very deep. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move, I've heard of this term many times before, I'd be surprised if there's not reliable sources on it. But it's definitely at the wrong title (with that underscore). Lankiveil 12:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the underscore is actually a part of the page title, see White guilt with a space points to this article. It was just put into the AfD title. --W.marsh 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Woah, my mistake. In that case, I change my opinion to Keep. Lankiveil 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as a definite real topic but the article definitely needs work.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, without sufficient citations, doubts about original research cannot be satisfied. --soum (0_o) 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The use as a title in the book by Shelby Steele suggests that the phrase is meaningful, although I'm more familiar with liberal guilt as a concept. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this topic is so interesting and noteable, why has no attempt ever been made to fix it and source it properly since it was created in 2004? Jtrainor 14:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who knows? It's obscure and tends to attract POV-pushing editors more than unbiased ones. Nevertheless the references show it's a real topic... the fact that the article isn't good yet isn't a reason to delete it. --W.marsh 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR as noted above. There is potentially a good article hidden under the name, but again, as stated previously, it's hidden way down there and the article that exists is not a proper framework for such an article. No one is suggesting protection, so if a potential topic exists those who feel it's out there somewhere are free to track it down and start anew - but I see no reason to keep this content and history. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The definition has been sourced since the AfD began. The article in general is poorly sourced, but defining the definition is sufficient to pass WP:OR for now. I am pleased someone cared enough to cite the definition. The page needs further work. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per TonyTheTiger. hateless 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. From the comments, I gather the nominator is looking for WP:CLEANUP? WilyD 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non-encyclopedic pseudo-scholarship and textbook OR. --Lee Vonce 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A poor start to an important topic. The motivation to keep is the value the article could have. Shenme 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup now that a couple reliable sources have been found. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a real, notable, important topic in society. --Candy-Panda 11:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, concentrates on few topics visible in the US (and not or less in Europe), role of media is missing, etc. Pavel Vozenilek 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't write about stuff that occurs mostly/only in America now? --W.marsh 18:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is a very important topic in society just like "white privilege."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.77.134 (talk • contribs)
Keep per "I've heard of this before seeing it on Wikipedia", and per recent citations. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presence in a psychology journal shoots down the original research claims. It can probably be sourced more extensively, but the topic has been discussed outside of wikipedia. —Ocatecir ^Talk 16:04, 16 April 2007 (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.