Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks

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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks[edit]

Subjective nonsense. It represents violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR at their worst, and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Ezeu 20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who decides what constitutes a stereotype? Who decides how notable a stereotype must be? Most importantly, why does this need a seperate article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Alun 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nomination. Edison 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note that no rationale has been presented that would justify a speedy delete, see WP:CSD. hateless 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Stereotypes exist and are standard objects of sociological and psychological research. Of course, the article is badly written and POV, but this is not a deletion reason, only a reason for improvement.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I've never heard of half of these stereotypes but this article's a great way to start them. This article is also very poorly sourced (how do do you document the existence of a stereotype in an encyclopedic way?) Timelist 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently this all goes back to the article Ethnic stereotypes in American media, from which the author extracted and created the following (see the Talk pages):

Some of them have turned out Very Well, but this one has unfortunately become a magnet for WP:OR and WP:POV "I think that Xxx should be in the list, too!" additions (lists tend to do that) ... maybe some of them have grown crufty and should be AfD'd as well (as was done with "Stereotypes of Jews").

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic stereotypes in American media 2 for further discussions related to this article ... if you delete the unsourced lists and partially protect it, there may still be a place for it in the "Stereotypes of ..." WikiVerse. But, yeah, the existing "article" blows chunks. —72.75.105.165 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep and rewrite. Stereotypes exist and are standard objects of sociological and psychological research. Of course, the article is badly written and POV, but this is not a deletion reason, only a reason for improvement -- exactly what Ioannes said I agree with, keep it redo it. Shouldn't have to delete a page just to recreate better. Just improve current. Wiki's not paper. --Xiahou 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xiahou. hateless 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and rewrite. I agree that the article is in terrible shape and is of no academic value right now. I created the article (split off as mentioned above) because I feel that it's important to have legitimate academic information about racial stereotyping available in an encyclopedia, and I still stand by that. I don't feel that the "no one can be the authority on what stereotypes are notable" arguments are valid because there's tons of research and scholarly work done in these areas. However, on the other hand, it doesn't seem that there are any experts on this topic spearheading the rewrite for this article. The article is doing more harm than good at the moment by spreading wrong information so I agree that deletion is a viable option until an expert comes along and re-creates it; but a better option, if someone informed in this area was willing to take on the task, would be to rewrite. --Drenched 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly original research or POV fork? Dragomiloff 12:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepand improve if needed, and we should get the one on Jews back. The POV is not in the article--the article is intended to be, and is, a neutral description of real-world prejudice. It's not adequate to the subject, for there is clearly a lot more to be said, but it is indeed difficult to find neutral language in which to say it or people willing to add it when it is subject to actions such as this.

Where the POV is in the choice to delete the articles which arouse the strongest feelings in the most people. That is against the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia, which treats all ethnic groups equally. DGG 07:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - mildy sourced, in principle highly encyclopaedic (albeit the actual article needs work). The article does need a lot of real work, but the concept is workable, and there's at least one source - it seems inappropriate to delete. I understand that some people may not like that Wikipedia is not censored, but she ain't. WilyD 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These stereotype article are a minefield of POV and OR. They serve to reinforce rather undermine the stereotypes they cover. Ultimately all groups have been sterotyped at some point- women, black people, Asian people, the Irish, gay people etc. Must all have an article? In fact none of these stereotypes is notable enough to have its own article- all are based on some irrational prejudice. Their content should either be in general articles about prejudice/oppression of particular groups or as examples in the article Stereotypes. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A stereotype article should seek to neither reinforce nor undermine the stereotype. Stereotypes are documentable and where verifiable are encyclopaedic, as long as they're documented as stereotypes (i.e. of unknown/irrelevent truth for their importance as a stereotype). As much as I hate to say it, your argument here flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for and runs counter to several policies, such as Wikipedia is not censored and WP:NPOV. The "moral value" of content is entirely irrelevent (or at least, that's what we're supposed to be aiming for). The Holocaust article doesn't come with a disclaimer saying You probably shouldn't do this nor do we delete the Creationism article on the grounds that someone might read it and be duped into believing it. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. WilyD 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstand me. I do not mean that this topic should not be covered on Wikipedia. However IMH opinion the correct place for the coverage is at discussions of racism or discrimination. Steeotyping is a minor instance of such occurances and is not sufficiently notable per se for seperate topics on every group that has been stereotyped. I agree that Wikipedia is not censored and have no problem with that policy. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Edit the Racism article and you'll see a little reminder Note: This page is 63 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. This article doesn't have an appropriate merge target as far as I can see. And your statement They serve to reinforce rather undermine the stereotypes they cover is mostly what I'm taking exception to. The stereotype article shoudl already cover what relation, if any, exists between stereotypes and truth. Specific examples deserve their own article all the time - for example, I don't think anyone would say Why do we have an article on Toronto? There's already an article on City - isn't that enough? WilyD 14:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Stereotyping is not just a minor manifestation of racism, and I believe it is notable enough to warrant independent articles. Writing about all the stereotypes under the racism article would make it way too long; if you look at previous versions of Ethnic stereotypes in American media, you'll see that even when we had a page devoted to just stereotypes, it was still too long. There are entire books written about racial stereotyping; a subsection/mention in a general article about racism would hardly be sufficient. Although it may appear from many of the above off-shoot articles that there isn't enough substantial content to warrant independent articles, this is not the case. The content exists, but just hasn't been written up and put into the articles. See Stereotypes of Asians for an example of a stand-alone article with a substantial amount of content. --Drenched 23:00, 16 December 2006 (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.