Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Zwarte Piet


 * 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. Clearly this can't be a standalone because its an aggregation of negative information. Notable criticism should be woven into the narrative of the article itself. Since this was split out from the main article and remains in history, there is not attribution need to keep this around. Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Zwarte Piet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The content is under debate at the main article. This appears to be an attempt by a WP:SPA to isolate the criticism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need for this page for all of the reasons that have already been discussed on the talk section of the original Zwarte Piet page. Constablequackers (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is very much needed. Several studies show that the overall majority (90-95 %) of the Dutch populace support the character and do not perceive him to be racist. The previous article version (apart from being a mess) had about 50% of its text devoted to incidents, protests and criticisms. While I'm sure many of those were notable or valid, they shouldn't high jack the article. It remains a minority view and should be treated as such within the main article. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Several polls? You've only cited one in this article. Where are the others? Please support your claims with reputable citations. Constablequackers (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That information could be added to the Zwarte Piet article, not segregated into an article that makes it seem that there is no opposition to the character. The way that you left it, it made it appear as though there was no opposition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the information contained within this new page does not qualify as "criticism." The decisions of Dutch businesses, Dutch festival organizers, Dutch school officials and even Dutch television networks to alter Zwarte Piet does not qualify as such. Granted, individuals like Russell Brand are critiquing the tradition but they do not much up the entirety of what's contained here. Again, this is a rundown on the events of the past several years. These passages are the combined efforts of no less than five Wikipedia editors who have spent the past several years researching news articles, writing updated information and making sure that everything is well cited in the original Zwarte Piet article. I'm sorry that all of this work does not meet with your approval, AKAKIOS, but it also doesn't grant you the right to cut and paste it all into a new, and poorly named, article that simply has no reason to exist. All in all, your actions reek of bad form and ill intent by an individual that is trying to hide all of this information from the public eye. Constablequackers (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, but if the previous article version really was the result of 5 editors searching for years on end for information about Zwarte Piet, than they we're either incompetent or extremely biased as the sheer size of news-material, studies and polls that is being published in support of Zwarte Piet exceeds that of the negative material and yet ... when reading the previous version one would swear this was not the case. This, again, is my point: I do not want to obscure or deny issues certain people might have with the character, I simply want the amount of attention given to them to match their popular support within Dutch and Belgian society.AKAKIOS (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A 2015 poll by DVJ Insights showed 75%+ of the Dutch populace over 35 years of age wanting Zwarte Piet to remain black.
 * In a poll of RTL Nieuws, 81% only supported a solely black Zwarte Piet with an aditional 10% supporting a majority of Zwarte Piets with a few soot-covered ones.
 * In a 2012 study by the municipality of Amsterdam, shows that majority of respondents do not consider the Zwarte Piet character to be racist or that the character is racists towards others.
 * A 2015 inquiry by the national newspaper Algemeen Dagblad showed that in the overwhelming majority of Dutch municipalities, no changes would be made to the traditional appearance of the Zwarte Piet character. Only 6% of the municipalities approached mentioned (further unspecified) changes to the character.
 * A 2013 inquiry by Dutch public news program EenVandaag showed that in every Dutch province, the overwhelming majority did not support changes in the Zwarte Piet characters appearance. The largest percentage in support of changing the characters appearance (9%) was found in North-Holland.  AKAKIOS (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The current version of the Zwarte Piet article is much more balanced, rather than an endless summation of incidents and newspaper articles, much better describing the current situation and cultural climate. Again, I am not against criticism, I am against the undue weight given to it in the main article. A criticism-article is needed if all information is to be kept. AKAKIOS (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add details about these polls to the original article but, once again, the section that has been once again added does *not* qualify as criticism and should not be treated as such. There is no need for the article you have created. As I have already noted, they are an encyclopedic rundown on a series of events. The UN incidents, the protests, the decisions to make changes to the characters at public events, on TV networks, etc. Criticism would consist of people making statements in editorials in newspapers or opinion polls. If this section were comprised entirely of that, you might have a point, but it isn't. Constablequackers (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To add my series of polls would only make the article even more unreadable, chaotic and unclear as it would juxtapose a number of well researched polls which state the majority of Dutch people in support of the character against a disproportionately large number of (often unrelated) incidents which seem to indicate some kind of 'civil war' is occurring. The version you want is not representative of the actual situation here in the Netherlands, the current version proposed by me does do this. Once again I repeat myself in saying I do not want to delete the information present in your personal article-version, I simply want it to be placed solely in the appropriate article rather than having it dominate the main article. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: Are you Dutch or Dutch-speaking?AKAKIOS (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Immaterial. It's both an irrelevant and improper question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So essentially what you're saying is what neo-Nazis say when criticism to that article is raised: we're just misinterpreted. We should certainly add the polls about how the Dutch think that ethnically entrenched racism is acceptable, but to the Zwarte Piet article. This article has no purpose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My question about being Dutch or Dutch-speaking is not irrelevant or improper. Firstly because nearly all of the detailed information concerning this subject, both academic, studies or general news items are in Dutch. Him (or you) not being speakers of Dutch not only would mean that you are unable to read most of the references you've added over the past years (as you claim) but also puts you at a severe disadvantage when asserting the validity of new or older references present in the article. What I find truly improper is the comparison you've now just made between neonazism and a holiday for children. I doubt that there is any country in the world in which neonazism would garner the support of 90%+ of the general populace. The fact alone that you could even make such a comparison (to me) proves the necessity of being able to read Dutch source material as well as a bias on your part, which (if I had such issues) would discourage me from editing this article in the first place. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is because 1) you are trying to out what people's nationality is and 2) you assume that one nationality has a right to define how the rest of the world discusses the subject. Neither is appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do read what I have said. Without speaking Dutch, the overwhelming majority of source material about the subject is unavailable to you. Being incapable of speaking the Dutch language, doesn't automatically make you the voice of "the rest of the world". This subject is a part of Dutch culture, if you have little to no affinity with that subject then you're at an intellectual disadvantage. I would encounter similar problems if I were to edit an article on Chinese proverbs, as I have no particular knowledge of Chinese or Chinese culture. To suggest I was interested in your language skills for any other reason is bad faith.  AKAKIOS (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While the point you make about a language barrier is not without merit, arguing that because of a language barrier you are more of an authority than someone else is not going to persuade many people on Wikipedia. What you would need to do is argue convincingly while pointing to the highest quality sources that aren't available in English, making a case about WP:WEIGHT. You're likely already doing some of that, but from my perspective there needs to be a consensus based on that discussion first, before this article can be created. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming to be a greater authority because I can speak Dutch, I only point out that discussing this matter without knowledge of Dutch is more complicated as it means these users are dependent on English-sources which are bound to treat this subject from a different cultural perspective or -in the worst case- similar to a foreign freak show. One of the 'opposing editors' has referred to the character as "ethnically entrenched racism", that makes it hard for me to believe common ground can be found in spite of all the source material I have already provided and will continue to provide.AKAKIOS (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: This article was first proposed for deletion, which was denied outright and the article does not conform to any valid reason of deletion: In other words there is no reason within Wikipedia policy to delete this article. The only reason why the above editors want to delete this particular page is because if it continues to exist, then their accumulated (and as has been proven and admitted, sometimes incorrect) collection of criticisms and incidents will no longer be featured in the main article in their current size. As of now, that loose collection of news incidents and quotes by celebrities occupies 40% of the articles total amount of information. That is ridiculously high, especially when considering (as conclusively proven above) that this is in effect a minority view on the matter. I once again stress it is not my intention to delete this information in the main article (unless incorrect of course) but that this to allow the Zwarte Piet article to be about its intended subject in a way in which criticisms are listed, but not stressed in a way that gives undue weight or distorts the magnitude of the issue. AKAKIOS (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion (article was nominated, quickly denied speedy deletion.)
 * 2) Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (not the case)
 * 3) Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish (not the case)
 * 4) Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (not the case)
 * 5) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) (not the case, in fact Wikipedia supports and encourages summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material.)
 * 6) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (not the case)
 * 7) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed (not the case)
 * 8) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (not the case)
 * 9) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (not the case)
 * 10) Redundant or otherwise useless templates (not the case)
 * 11) Categories representing overcategorization (not the case)
 * 12) Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy (not the case)
 * 13) Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace (not the case)
 * 14) Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia (not the case, the page is essentially a spin off of already present established content.)
 * Actually it was first redirected by  and you decided to revert that edit. It was then nominated for a speedy deletion by the same editor under an incorrect criteria and was rejected by  an admin. I would argue it was split without discussion or consensus (the latter of which it still lacks) I then PRODed the article and user:Rhododendrites, who commented below, deleted that. I then brought it to AfD. Please get your facts straight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the end, the request for speedy deletion was denied; those are the facts. You on the other hand, by calling this character "ethnically entrenched racism" even though you do not speak Dutch, have no particular knowledge of Dutch culture or probably ever having seen this tradition in real life, have shown that facts and objectivity do not matter to you. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the end, the request for speedy deletion was denied for technical reasons. Please don't misconstrue the reason or make it seem as though the admin that denied the speedy did so because this article is legitimate or that the admin endorses the article's content. I would not have taken it to speedy because there's no good reason to delete the article under the existing speedy criteria.
 * And your argument that I can't recognize "ethnically entrenched racism" because you think I don't speak Dutch (I have never confirmed or denied your request) again shows a flawed logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not my argument, that's your imagination. You used the wording "ethnically entrenched racism" to describe the Zwarte Piet figure, my argument is that in doing so you have disqualified yourself as an impartial editor of that article.AKAKIOS (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And you linked my inability to discuss the topic adequately because I don't speak (or probably, more correctly, read) Dutch was linked to that (as is clearly seen in what you wrote). Sorry if I misunderstood your English as well. Are there other things I don't understand, or can we get back to deleting this article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete and Redirect to Zwarte Piet (and restore the material there, though I don't think that qualifies as a merge here) without prejudice to recreation if consensus emerges in discussion on the main article that it's an appropriate WP:SPINOFF. For now, it's looking an awfully lot like a WP:POVFORK. See the page creator's comments above being about reducing the amount of criticism on the Zwarte Piet page ("I simply want the amount of attention given to them to match their popular support within Dutch and Belgian society"). There are "criticism of..." articles, but they're very rare, subject to a high degree of scrutiny, are always accompanied by thorough summaries left on the main article page, and require both an extreme amount of coverage of the criticism itself and a main article that's about a much bigger subject which would be dominated by the criticism in an WP:UNDUE way. I frankly don't know if a criticism article is justified, but think that's best discussed on the article talk page first. FWIW, I'm also not opposed to Userfying for the time being &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I meant by that comment was simply that the article shouldn't consist of 40% criticisms (of the total article size) when only about 5% of the population (at best) supports/has these criticisms. That doesn't mean I consider them to be invalid, but they shouldn't dominate the main article in such a way that it makes it seem as if some sort of civil war is going on, hence the criticism article. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand, but you'll need to separate the argument about the degree of support within the population from arguments about WP:WEIGHT. The former is not relevant to the amount of coverage aspects of a subject receive. It does mean that the article should be clear about public support, but public support doesn't determine article weight. There are plenty of cultural subjects where a particular population considers it normal or at least inoffensive, but which is nonetheless written about by others as objectionable such that the appropriate weighting of the article would emphasize controversy/objections. I would give an example, but those that come to mind are so extreme as to be unhelpful. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I do not object to criticisms of the character nor do I expect it to reflect the majority Dutch opinion (though I would expect it to be given preeminence), but the way in which the previous version was presented, it made it biased. I also struggle to find a proper/tasteful example, but it would be like the article on atomic energy would for 40% focus on the inhumanity that atomic bombs cause, rather devoting attention to other capabilities and the history of its discovery. That's why I created the criticism article, rather than simply delete the information.AKAKIOS (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it's worth noting that I was the one who removed the PROD. Regarding "IMPORTANT: This article was first proposed for deletion, which was denied outright and the article does not conform to any valid reason of deletion:" - "Denied outright" is a bit strong. Anybody can deprod, and deprodding isn't necessarily a commitment to the quality/validity of the article. In this case, it looked like a sizable amount of criticism that could possibly justify a WP:SPINOFF and the PROD rationale had to do more with the page creator's intent than the validity of the spinoff. For those reasons, PROD didn't seem like the right way to go (AfD means there's more discussion and usually more people paying attention -- better for these less clear cases). In other words, I removed the PROD but don't object to an AfD, and in fact agree with the delete perspective. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, although I would rename it to "Zwarte Piet controversy" such as used here and (in translated form) here. The controversy itself has been receiving increasing attention in (inter)national media, which would warrant a spinoff article, of course with a summary + "see also" hatnote on the Zwarte Piet page. The current criticism article does need some rewriting, in particular the lead section to comply with WP:MOSLEAD. In addition to criticism, I imagine that a Zwarte Piet controversy article might include various incidents/"riots"/etc., international (UN) attention and responses to the controversy, such as recolouring Piet. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not news. and that is exactly what most of this article is, just news. The essential debate should be able to be presented in a short paragraph in the main article on Zwarte Piet.  If that is done, then no content fork is necessary, and there will be no undue emphasis. No redirect is required since "Zwarte Piet" is the primary search term. --Bejnar (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete separate criticism articles are reserved, if at all, only for huge topics. The info here could be easily merged in the main article, and there's no need for a redundant redirect. Also, there's the SPA account issue. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It was split out so there's very little to merge. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the topic is clearly notable over and beyond the cultural activity it critiques. I can't see that there is a policy reason for deletion, and clearly wikipedia sometimes allows separate describing criticisms of other ideas. In my view it is very likely that an edit war would result from an insistent on merge, and so keeping the articles instead of merging seems the best way to keep all content. JMWt (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was split without discussion and watered-down in the process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very possibly true, but I don't see that makes any difference. Those celebrating a cultural norm are not going to want extended edit wars to include a large criticism section - and those who feel strongly that the criticisms should be recorded do not want to appear on a page that describes in detail the thing it is criticising. Clearly there exist extended sources both a) about the practice and b) about the criticism of the practice. That either of the pages today are inferior does not suggest that they should not exist, and as I said I fail to see a policy reason why they should not. Indeed, to retain maximum, sourced information without an unresolvable edit war it seems like the only way would be to keep both. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, at best it should be (re)merged but I really don't see a call for deletion here. Notability and sources are not a issue, and JMWt above gave some valid reasons for splitting the criticism into a separate article. Cavarrone  07:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Selective merge to main page (for notable parts). We generally try to avoid creating criticism only pages: WP:CRITS. That's certainly true here where both pages are not particularly long, and this could be included on the main page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2015 (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.