Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of African Americans


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes of African Americans
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Much like similar articles on white people and Jewish people, this article is nothing but a racist collection of everyone's favorite stereotypes. Any real, notable stereotypes should have their own article. (For example, Magical negro already does.) Racism_in_the_United_States  partially overlaps this topic and if it needs to be expanded, Racism against African Americans can be spawned off into its own topic ... but of the worthwhile content here, there is nothing that should not be handled either as a category or in the other racism article. Having this article is just a POV fork for promoting racial stereotypes. B (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All of these stereotype articles feel like POV forks. They all boil down to racism in some form, and can easily be handled in a broader topic about racism involving whichever ethnicity is at issue. AniMate  talk  03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't forks. What they are are splits.  Here's an interesting fact to consider:  This article isn't GFDL-compliant.  Over 1 year's worth of author attribution (which is quite a number of authors, looking at the deleted revisions) has been lost because of the deletion of  (more AFD discusion), whose content was split into this and several other articles (including  by  in July 2006 (not that one could know from the bad edit summaries that xe used). So we might have to delete it for the very unusual reason of not being able to bring it into adherence to our copyright policy.  Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a red herring. Any admin can get the edit history from the deleted articles and paste them into the current article's talk page.  I'm very surprised this wasn't done at the time of the split.  It should be done soon.  If it's not done within a day or so, please post on WP:ANI asking that it be done.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Note: Per my remarks elsewhere on this page, I may be wrong about the GFDL.  Please ask an expert before deleting on GFDL grounds. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kiddo, I am an administrator, and I know about histories on talk pages, and the somewhat shaky GFDL compliance that that provides. My 'bot was doing that before your account even existed.  It's an approach that is problematic, for Wikipedia mirrors (that don't mirror talk pages) for page moves (when the talk page isn't brought along with the article), and for ordinary talk page use.  It was the best approach that we could use years ago, which is why we used it, but it wasn't perfect, and we knew that.  Why do you think that Special:Import was invented? Uncle G (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If copying to talk pages does not comply with the GFDL, then documentation that mentions it needs to be updated. As for this specific case, before deleting an article on a copyvio, I'd like to hear from an actual copyright law expert that this is the only solution, particularly one well-versed in the GFDL. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the best compliance that we could get with MediaWiki as it was back then. (See m:Help talk:Transwiki.)  But we now have transwikification mechanisms that transfer the document history and retain it as history.  Ironically, they aren't enabled for this project.  If they were, one (albeit somewhat extreme) solution here that I believe would be possible (although it's never been done to my knowledge) would be to export the page, and then import it multiple times to create multiple histories, each of which are then history merged into the relevant split articles.  But the facilities are not enabled here (and there are concerns with import, on a wiki this size, that will probably prevent the feature ever being enabled to the requisite full extent necessary for this solution).  A developer could still arrange this, of course.  Developer time is scarce, however. We could of course decide to undelete the source article, and mark the split in its and the destination articles' edit histories.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is nothing wrong with this that can't be addressed through normal editing. B's comments that this is "nothing but a racist collection of everyone's favorite stereotypes" can be fixed by editing out any POV. Animate's comment that "can easily be handled in a broader topic about racism involving whichever ethnicity is at issue" is true but the process for that is WP:MERGE not WP:AFD. Uncle G's comment about splits needs administrator attention to add the GFDL history to this article's talk page, but is not relevant to this AFD.  It might be relevant to an AFD whose intent was to force a re-consolodation of the split articles and deleting of the rest, but that's not what this AFD is, this AFD is a typical delete/don't delete AFD.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reason for deletion under deletion policy, which includes violation of Copyright policy, is relevant. This isn't a debating society, where one is constrained solely to discuss some specific "motion".  The question at issue is whether Deletion policy applies, and the possibility that we cannot bring this article into GFDL compliance is one part of that question, even if it is one that is exceedingly rarely encountered. Uncle G (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed, any reason is valid, including the possibility that it's an irreparable GFDL violation. But it's not irreparable.  Barring corruption of the database without recoverable backups, the possibility of not being able to come into GFDL compliance is zero.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC) updated/struck, see above - need legal-expert input before declaring that article is or is not repairable. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is functionally a directory to more specific stereotype articles, interwoven with bizarre chestnuts like "many people are surprised to learn that criminality among African-American youth is significantly lower when it comes to the use of tobacco, alcohol or some illicit drugs." Huh?  Exactly.  Townlake (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per davidwr — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't get to vote away the GFDL. Some method of addressing this, for all of the several split articles, has to be invented here. Uncle G (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions. I'm relatively inexperienced at AfD, so if you'll help me along here:
 * I know that the fact that most of the material in this article is offensive to most intelligent people, on Wikipedia, we do not censor for the person who might be offended, correct? And is this principle not further demonstrated by the existence of Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States, Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans, Western stereotypes of West and Central Asians, etc?  Is the editor proposing deletion saying that all of these need to be deleted?
 * Although the article does have citations, it also looks to me like a lot of it is OR. Might this be a reason for deletion?
 * I have to admit, my understanding of copyright issues is very, very limited, so what Uncle G is talking about is way beyond me. What I do understand, however, is that sometimes some issues having nothing to do with everyday editing (such as BLP and copyright), can sometimes override "consensus".  Could someone else besides Uncle G speak to these issues?  Because I think I get what he's saying, all of our other concerns are moot if this copyright issue holds.   Un  sch  ool  05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone from WP:OFFICE says "sorry, there's no way to comply with copyright short of deletion" then it's game over. If some other expert comes in and says the same thing, then the only challenge is to counter with another equally-qualified expert to say otherwise.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  06:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article is far from perfect, it does have a lot of useful information about the topic. Please consider that it would be almost impossible to get a professional writer to write a neutral article on this subject. He or she would have the choice to stick strictly to the "politically correct" line or destroy his or her career and reputation if he or she said something in the wrong way.  Remember what happened to Nick the Greek?  What I am saying is that this is the kind of topic where WP is especially valuable. Borock (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Jimmy the Greek. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Thank you. I guess all Greeks look alike to me. :-) Borock (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete for the lot The entire string of Stereotypes of (whomever) articles bring discredit on the project. They all boil down to "(group) has been characterized as (list of insults)" where the insults never are based in fact even if a WP:RS can be found to record that the insult has been used. Why promulgate this crap?LeadSongDog (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Wikipedia is not censored. travb (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete this garbage. There are a variety of articles discussing racism in all its wonderful contexts. These are all cases of false beliefs that these articles dignify.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Delete all the stereotype pages.  Do not support hatred and bigotry against anyone.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an encyclopedia. Pages on stereotypes do not "support hatred and bigotry", they simply inform on the matter. Interestingly, not all stereotypes against a race are racist or hateful. Steretypes are by definition neutral, and only there correctness and usage draws any conclusions. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a perfectly valid article about stereotypes directed at African Americans. The only irony being the titular use of the term African American, in itself an American stereotype. I was going to make the case for delete as a surplus list, but then I noticed all the other delete votes and didn't want to align myself with such anti-Wikipedia reasoning. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   —Juzhong (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — As Inclusionist put it bluntly, Wikipedia is not censored. Nearly all the information in the article is verifiable, and the concept of African-American stereotypes is easily notable. Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to steal a bike and head downtown for some fried chicken (Note: cannot get any watermelon this time of the year, sorry to say). MuZemike  ( talk ) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest deleting the last sentence, I know it was made in jest, but it destroyed the rest of your argument. You can delete these two sentences of mine too. travb (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So stricken. I suppose humor does not belong in Wikipedia anymore. Apologies. MuZemike  ( talk ) 15:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable and sourced.Biophys (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand; notable topic; sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. Badagnani (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a distinct topic, not suitable for merging as a section of a more general article. It's sourced. We are doing this for all ethnic groups -- we are an encyclopedia of the world as it is. DGG (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As with the article on Jews, the subject matter easily passes WP:V and WP:N. It's not our fault that this sort of material is notable and verifiable, but it is our duty to include it when it is.    Themfromspace (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - like most non-FA articles it could use improvement, but it is a notable topic for which we have (currently a limited number of) reliable sources, but for which there are numerous reliable sources that exist which could easily be added to the article if someone were interested in tackling the job. (roughly 37,000 potential sources in just books alone, not to mention what might be found in academic journals) --  The Red Pen of Doom  01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why you cracka-ass bitches be hatin' on dis ahticle? It be well-sourced an' everthin'.  Y'all jus' think it dun apply to you, so you call it "cruft".  Well, guess what, whitey?  We've had enough of The Man, an' we be keepin' dis ahticle, y'hear?  Now, ima go get me sum chitlins an' a smokin' hot piece o' sum white wimmen's boo-tay.  Hallelujah!  (P.S. I'm truly not sorry if my humor has offended you.  I know, I know, Wikipedia is a no-fun zone.  And I'm just a puny IP address, anyways.)--24.129.100.84 (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's reasoning. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a serious social issue.  This and the other AFD's of "Sterotypes of X", if it's a nontrivial article, smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless the copyright issue (which I'd rather not even try to understand) is a show stopper. As with the Stereotypes of Jews article this one is not in any way saying that there is any truth in these stereotypes, but simply saying that they exist as stereotypes. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above "keep" arguments. The way to fix the GFDL compliance problem is to restore Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture and/or Ethnic stereotypes in American media or any other article from which content in this article was split or merged; to make each restored article either into a redirect to this or some other suitable page, or into a disambiguation page pointing to all the pages to which the content was split; and to make a dummy edit in each destination page indicating in the edit summary that "Some content in this article was derived from material found in the edit history of Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture and/or Ethnic stereotypes in American media", or some other appropriate wording. DHowell (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (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.