Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Up a White Kid Day


 * 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 keep. Furthermore, I have access to Plain Dealer archives and I have found out that all referenced articles do mention this event happening, but I don't think any one article calls it "Beat Up a White Kid Day," though I haven't yet made a thorough search. Those interested in improving this article may contact me for clarifications regarding the statements in this article via e-mail or via my talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * After a further search, I have discovered that two separate articles specifically call it "Beat Up a White Kid Day" :
 * 18 kids are charged with racially motivated beating of teenage girl, The Plain Dealer, Metro, B7, June 14, 2003, Author: Brian E. Albrecht
 * May Day ritual accepted as fact, The Plain Dealer, Metro, B1, October 8, 2003, Author: Regina Brett
 * So, there you have it. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Beat Up a White Kid Day

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

None of the supposed "references" in this article acually point to any online pages which use this term. And lookups on Google seem to all point to white power and right wing websites. I can find no reliable evidence that there is any such "day", except in the minds of the people writing the forum, blog and columns. Corvus cornix 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC) this ref appears to be a real story. WilyD 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Smells like a racist urban legend. Does anyone have access to the archives of the Cleveland Plain Dealer to check this one out? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is a very dicey one - there's certainly the issue of all the references being formatted wrong, but if it's a hoax, it's spread around. While FreeRepublic is full of nutcases, it isn't exactly unheard of, nor are some of the other references.  Anyone know if findarticles.com is reliable?  Ref 23 seems to be a real article, but I'm not sure if it supports the statement.
 * It's still just a columnist, not a news article. Corvus cornix 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Leonard Pitts is a nationally syndicated columnist. So this appears to have some validity, although the article may overstate its spread (it appears to be confined to Cleveland). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, from what I've gathered, the stories are real and more or less support the article. While some skinheads may be exhaggerating the importance, it seems to be locally important to Cleveland at least.  This  specifically uses beat up a white kid as the name of a ritual on may 1.  May Day (Racist Holidy) or something might be a better name for the article, but it seems as legitimate as the Plains Dealer. WilyD 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be worth an article on the belief that there is such a day, but there's still no evidence that this "day" really exists. Corvus cornix 22:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even this reference, from the right-wing Washington Times, says "I have been looking into this urban legend about May Day and found nothing", although that may just be a snippet of what the person is really saying, and I'm not going to purchase the article to read the rest of it. Corvus cornix 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete The phenomenon appears non-notable and local, possibly isolated incidents. References either no not support the contents of the article, or only do so under an extremely biased POV.  This is almost certainly an attempt to give momentum and notoriety to this "holiday".  Coren 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. The claims in the article are supported by WP:RS and the article meets Wikipedia article policies. The Cleveland Plain Dealer articles are available online at Plain Dealer search and at numerous local libraries. An Ohio state judge reviewed the matter during the 2003 incident criminal trial and confirmed that the event is true as detailed in this Plain Dealer article. The judge did not censor himself and instead acknowledge the existence of Beat Up a White Kid Day, reasoning that "This terrible tradition must be stopped by sending a message." Wikipedia should not be censored. -- Jreferee 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Findarticles is not a reference source of any kind at all. It is merely a site linking to individual journals and newspapers, and the reliability of the material depends upon where it comes from. It can be given as the link, but the name of whatever it was that published the material is the important part of the reference. I might have doubts about the Washington Times if there were no other reference, but it is confirmed by the Plain Dealer, which is certainly reliable. DGG 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where is it confirmed by the Plain Dealer? Corvus cornix 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * this articles confirms the May 1st is a day for the "beat up a white kid ritual" aspect. I agree the title of the article may be a little off, most of the Plain Dealer articles call it "May Day", but you can see how that might not be ideal. WilyD 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The link makes no mention of "Beat Up a White Kid Day". Corvus cornix 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Content versus title - I've already articulated that the title may be a little off, of course the more appropriate title may be May day which is already a little occupied. Of course, move to May day (description) may be a valid outcome for the AfD, I don't know what the description is, though.  WilyD 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I actually meant Is findarticles.com a reliable reporduction of their alledged source? The findarticles link I posted above is from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which seems to be a reliable newspaper.   And it specifically refers to this Beat up a white kid day.  WilyD 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a newspaper article, it's an opinion column. Corvus cornix 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source that the term Beat up a White Kid Day is actually used and not original research on the part of the writer(s) and editor(s). WilyD 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's a reliable source that this one columnist used the term in reference to this one incident. Corvus cornix 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * apparently some kids in Cleveland have a bizarre tradition that May 1 is Beat Up A White Kid day. No, the WP:RS indicates that this is (a? the?) name for it. This suggests it's confined to cleveland (which I suspect is more or less true) - but this is a minor squibble about phrasing.  It's certainly not a big deal, though the lead paragraph should probably be as explicit as possible about the extent of the thing. WilyD 15:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, after much soul-searching. The references appear to be legit, and the topic is reasonably fair game, given how widely it's covered (at least 4 large newspapers have carried articles on it, in Cleveland, Miami, Milwaukee and Washington, so it's not "of local interest").  While the article doesn't address how widespread the phenomena is, I haven't seen any references on the issue, and I suspect the answer is unknown.  We shouldn't draw any judgement on the issue, therefor.  While I believe it's probably a local, isolated incident(s), that isn't for me to decide.  I'm not opposed to, and may actually be in favour of, renaming the article, if anyone knows a better name (I'm a little stumped). WilyD 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Four large newspapers have carried articles on the incident which caused certain people to discuss the term. There is no evidence that the term is actually used by any of the perpetrators themselves.  Corvus cornix 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true that it's unknown, but it's also true that it's irrelevent. Elephants don't use that term to refer to themselves, yet that's where we place the article.  Look, your nomination was a sensible one, and my gut reaction was that you were right.  But I wasn't sure, so I investigated the sources by applying teh google, and it turns out they're legit.  And so is the article.  Sure, the biggest interest in the subject seems to come from far right nujobs, but it has been discussed in major newspapers at length (including the largest newspapers in Cleveland and Miami, it seems).  The most appropriate thing for you to do now is admit you were wrong and withdraw the nomination.  I understand why you did it, and I may have done the same.  But with more in depth investigation, we can all see it was a mistake. WilyD 15:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no way I'm withdrawing the nomination, it will be up to the closing admin to decide whether your or my arguments are more persuasive. Corvus cornix 01:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that every point in the nomination has been shown to be false (unless maybe the Miami Herald is an extreme right wing organisation?) As far as I can see, the only argument let for delete is May be at a slightly suboptimal title which doesn't stand up very well against Neutral, Verifiable. Well referenced and shown to be the subject of widespread interest.  Passes the notability criteria of WP:N with flying colours.  I have to admit, I'm surprised to see such persistance in such an obvious error from an experienced editor.  Hey, my first nomination at AfD was a mistake, and I held on because I didn't really know any better.  But now that every reason you nominated the article for is shown to be untrue, the proper thing to do is to withdraw the nom. It saves everyone time and effort in an uncontraversial keep, and makes the encyclopaedia a friendlier and more professional place, where we all work together to build something great that belongs to none of us.  WilyD 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Really funny and revenge on Don Imus.  --Loostick 21:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a few legitimate sources does not a valid article make. Seems so isolated to one day/region it seems to fail WP:notability. If there is validity for an article, then why not one on May Day in Cleveland which reports all the other things going on in the area and other (probaly older and better sourced) traditions? Rgds, - Trident13
 * Fails WP:N? This:
 * The primary criterion for notability, shared by many of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not,1 is that:
 * A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 
 * part of WP:N? It passes the primary criterion of WP:N with flying colours - so I'm a little confused what part of WP:N it fails.  Would you care to elaborate? WilyD 13:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but possibly rename. Notable, well referenced. The complaint that there are no online references is not a valid reason for deletion. However, I'm concerned about the article's title. Has the phrase "Beat Up a White Kid Day" actually been used by the judge in the case, or by journalists covering the incidents? If so, the article needs to point that out; if not, it needs to be renamed. Wikipedia should not create terminology. AxelBoldt 01:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into May Day. There are many other examples of national and international May Day observances and "celebrations" (as it were) on May 1st; this one seems to fit there, if as an oddity, but nevertheless it is notable, has a history, and held consistently on May Day.  The article states that the perps who engaged in the violence did it because "it's May Day" ... and went on to explain that May Day "is the day blacks beat on whites".  OK, so be it.  As a section within May Day it could be substantially cleaned up and distilled down to "just the facts" to avoid POV and other notability arguments. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.