Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black privilege


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Black privilege
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced article on a concept that appears to have been invented by Metapedia. Fishal (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Great article Don't delete. Studying privilege is a part of critical theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.102.97 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * comment I think the notability is borderline but the GBook search shows genuine hits on the notion. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * speedy delete per Iselilj. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No reference in Google Books. There is article on White Privilege, but no mention of this term in that article. - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This statement is not true. The first three GBook hits I get are good, and the third goes on to define the notion. I'm not utterly convinced that this is enough to write an article around, or that the present article addresses the concept as these books do, but it is utterly inaccurate to say that books don't mention this. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete due to RS and apparent failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there does seem to be a small amount of mainstream coverage, this is primarily a WP:FRINGE theory from Stormfront and its ilk.  The only thing we can discuss is how mainstream journalists and researchers state that it's a fringe theory.  I don't really see the point, unless people want to use this article to denounce it (a clear case of violating NPOV).  The definitions in the books provided by Mangoe seem idiosyncratic and divergent; certainly, they have nothing to do with the White Nationalist rhetoric here.  The article could be repurposed for the book definitions and ignore the fringe White Nationalist rhetoric, but I'm not convinced that this is really a thing yet.  Google scholar returns some results, but it's still not clear what they're discussing or how accepted any of their definitions are.  The majority of them seem to be discussing white privilege. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as hoax/vandalism. The article is copied verbatim from the white privilege article (only changing white to black) and is obviously a parody to make a point. Iselilja (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - unsourced essay and neologism, a fork of the white article. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2014 (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.