Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing black woman syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Kurykh 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Missing black woman syndrome[edit]
- Missing black woman syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
6 Google hits, 2 of which direct to the article and 4 of which direct to blogs. The author apparently created it for "racial equality", in reference to Missing white woman syndrome. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me see... content forking of an article that has been tagged as POV and on which nothing has been done yet to improve the situation...
Mergesounds like the sensible solution here.- It's content creation, not content forking. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, merging this article with Missing white woman syndrome would solve the latter's POV issues. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging a piece of original research into missing white woman syndrome would solve nothing. NPOV is representing all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is an insignificant view that is not supported by reliable sources. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's material for the talk page of missing white woman syndrome. That is, if the creator of missing black woman syndrome reads this AfD discussion. As it stands now, the editors of missing white woman syndrome, and whoever tagged it POV, may not even be aware of the existence of the missing black woman syndrome article, much less this AfD discussion. A merger discussion would at the very least be a start. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merger discussion is utterly pointless when the material in question is original research. I repeat: this term yields no significant Google results. Original research violates Wikipedia policy and should be obliterated wherever it occurs. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, what is not original research is the fact there exists a counter-example of the POV expressed in missing white woman syndrome. It is blatant for all to see. Whether such a pattern is generalized (which is what the POV dispute here is all about) is a completely different story, but I'm sure that for the sake of making the POV tag disappear from missing white woman syndrome, its editors would agree on a simple mention of the one case discussed in missing black woman syndrome. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The POV tag was added over a year ago by User:Auno3, a user who has been blocked indefinitely for racist editing. Moreover, the lone example missing black woman syndrome cites, Tamika Huston, is actually an example in support of missing white woman syndrome, and is used in that article as such. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, what is not original research is the fact there exists a counter-example of the POV expressed in missing white woman syndrome. It is blatant for all to see. Whether such a pattern is generalized (which is what the POV dispute here is all about) is a completely different story, but I'm sure that for the sake of making the POV tag disappear from missing white woman syndrome, its editors would agree on a simple mention of the one case discussed in missing black woman syndrome. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merger discussion is utterly pointless when the material in question is original research. I repeat: this term yields no significant Google results. Original research violates Wikipedia policy and should be obliterated wherever it occurs. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's material for the talk page of missing white woman syndrome. That is, if the creator of missing black woman syndrome reads this AfD discussion. As it stands now, the editors of missing white woman syndrome, and whoever tagged it POV, may not even be aware of the existence of the missing black woman syndrome article, much less this AfD discussion. A merger discussion would at the very least be a start. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging a piece of original research into missing white woman syndrome would solve nothing. NPOV is representing all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is an insignificant view that is not supported by reliable sources. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, merging this article with Missing white woman syndrome would solve the latter's POV issues. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's content creation, not content forking. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Blanchardb Something X (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, this article's entire raison d'être is a very misguided attempt to address an entirely unexplained neutrality dispute at missing white woman syndrome. In contrast to the latter article, which cites books (and charitable organizations) that observe and discuss a disparity in media coverage, no-one has documented any such disparity, as this article claims to exist, outside of Wikipedia. I can find no sources at all to support this idea. It has been concocted from whole cloth by a Wikipedia editor, and written about first in Wikipedia, in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. We don't merge original research, and we don't make up stuff simply because editors don't happen to like what the world has documented. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a tool for correcting disparities in the world that Wikipedia editors don't like. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's very little to merge. Anyone, right now, can add a sentence or two to the other article, without your permission or mine, and accomplish the same purpose. I agree with Punc that this comes straight from the "white men are persecuted" school of thought, which views any perceived preferential treatment to someone else as "reverse" racism, sexism, or whatever. Notability cannot be derived from being the opposite of something that is notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with Uncle G. It could have been speedy deleted for just being incorrect and having no basis in fact. I think the tag should be removed from Missing white woman syndrome, it's well sourced and seems neutral to me. --Neon white (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : Un-sourced and un-cited which make article WP:POV. Shoessss | Chat 15:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to demonstrate either notability or verifiability. Original research should not get merged into another. Edison (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and do not merge. There are no reliable sources documenting the subject so it should be deleted. Merging original research still results in original research. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is still being developed. Why not give it a chance? MWWS has been pure and simple racism from the very start, and its sources are crap. This article promotes racial equality. Why? Are y'all still living in the 1940's? EgraS (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT - First, Wikipedia was not created to develop any type of equality. It was envisioned to provide information that was verifiable, encyclopedic and easily updated by the masses as information became available from verifiable sources. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a “Bulletin Board” to float “Original Research” or ideas that are not verifiable or encyclopedic. If the author of this article can show and cite sources that show this is a “Notable” subject, I say KEEP , if not DELETE and at this point, sorry to say DELETE . Shoessss | Chat 23:41, 12 December 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.