Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White people by country

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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White people by country[edit]

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

One of the main concerns with this article is that it is prone to original research and primary source synthesis, and from a larger systemic point of view, a lack of a definition of what "white people" is defined to mean. Currently it has a bunch of random numbers, some cited to material that agrees with it, others that have numbers that contain no citations, and others cited to sources that don't use the word "white" at all. While AfD is not cleanup, this article poses major issues to our verifiability and original research policies to a point where it would be very difficult to bring it into line with policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that this is inherent original research. Renata (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - Initially upon seeing the article I was "strong delete," although now it has been improved since then (source wise). I do feel the name of the article is problematic, but many of the sources under "Ethnic groups:" refer to simply "white: __%". So I feel that there's not a lot of OR in that term. I agree the article has some serious issues but looking at the edit history this seems to be a work in progress going in the right direction. For what it's worth, this started as a direct copy paste from Islam by country at which time I would have agreed with "delete". Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Sorry, Drewmutt, but you're drawing parallels with articles of a different calibre. We've just gone through the same issues for the European diaspora which has had to be redefined and retitled... and it still isn't clear whether the article will stand up once it's been further cleaned up. What next? Black people by country; Asian people by country; Mulatto people by country; Quadriplegic people by country? Yes, there is common use of various terminology, but the fact that a definition (which also varies dependent on the discipline) does not make for a broad scope article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by its nature this article can only be WP:OR. Are the Irish "white"? (go see How the Irish Became White and then form your own view). Are Turkish people "white"? Egyptians? @Drewmutt's point that the article follows the form of Islam by country is helpful because with a religious group one can objectively agree on who are to be considered members of the group and who are not. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR (the entry for Sweden lists ~94% whites in spite of the Swedish authorities not registering peoples' ethnicity, skin colour or anything else that anyone could go by when deciding if someone is "white" or not...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 07:45, 22 March 2017 (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.