Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes of white people

 * Please read the entire AFD before commenting. An editor has suggested changing to an older version. The article may change radically in the middle of this AFD. 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted to August 2008 version and reopened for discussion 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a completely new version as of January 5. 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

On the heels of the Stereotypes of Jews AFD, I'm nominating this for deletion. Highly negative and unsourced. Technically speedyable under G10 (white people are an entity). Sceptre (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete as per, well, just awful.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Revert: The current article is unreferenced and unverifiable but older revisions are referenced and have some merit. The last referenced version was . I suggest going back over its history and finding a version prior to that which seems relatively good and reverting to that. This might be a struggle as the article seems to have been a real vandal magnet but I think there is an encyclopaedic subject fighting to get out from under all the nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Week Delete Per total lack of verifiable information from reliable sources currently given or likely to be presented However I do not condone a speedy deletion under G10 and indeed declined it myself. Unless this AFD is snowed with deletes it should not give rise to a speedy. If there is problematic information remove it - that is not grounds to remove the whole article. Pedro : Chat  22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this to hell. Not an encyclopedic entry. --John (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous AFD of similar article Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of whites. The original version of this article was meant to be a "fresh start" of that topic. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Several independent versions are in the edit history Consider if any of these are worth keeping:
 * current version, as of the time of the AFD
 * 10:23, 27 August 2008
 * original version, before its history section got gutted davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but revert back to the August version. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC) see below - rewrite of Jan 5/6 is vastly superior davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is complete conjecture, and is utterly non-encyclopedic. • Freechild   'sup?   22:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: On December 31, an editor copied the text of Stereotypes of Whites to this article, overwriting a redirect to White people. He then turned Stereotypes of Whites into a redirect to here.  Recommend re-listing this to deletion discussion to include both articles, OR roll this article back to its pre-redirect state and list AFDs separately.
 * Comment: The editor responsible for the current version,, is blocked until 22:36, 4 January 2009. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. And while we're at it, delete all "stereotypes of ethnic groups" articles unless impeccably sourced.--Positionyr&#39;self (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The way this is written, it's like it came from a black power, African American equivalent of Stormfront - i.e. full of lies and idiocy. Also, this article, as with much else in Wikipedia, is extremely Americanocentric. What about white people outside America, and indeed the English-speaking world? What would people in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia make of this? They'd think it was Americanised tripe. On a final note, I'm a white male and my penis is like 8 inches long erect. Is the author of this article calling that small? Sure, I can't dance well (I have a disability that restricts my physical coordination; what do you expect) but this article is complete crap.-Positionyr&#39;self (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Struck comment by banned user -- nobody cares about your penis size, BaT. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per this edit summary by the author - - this thing is nothing but a WP:POINT objection to Stereotypes of African Americans, which should also be deleted. --B (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Note admin: my comments below regard the relisted version The basic reason: non-encyclopedic. The current version is completely unsourced, and should be deleted (Jungle Fever?). Above, David points to an earlier version of the article. The review of the edit history is commendable; however there are still numerous points about that version which make it unencyclopedic.Some beginning thoughts on the older version: I moved my comment to the new section regarding the relisted version
 * Delete per Lazulilasher. travb (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisting Admin comment: I reverted this to an older version. The version originally nominated was a clear G10 violation. This version might be salvagable. But I think it still needs to be discussed. Hats off to Davidwr for identifying a viable version.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I deleted this article per G4, as this version is from August 27. On August 28, Articles_for_deletion/Stereotypes_of_whites was put up for AFD. That is a different article with a different history. I am going to relist this so that the August 27th discussion can be considered. The one initially nomed was a clear G10-Attack Page.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep so as not to give the world the impression that wikipedians are a bunch of racist scum for having an article of stereotypes of black people but not one one about stereotypes of themselves. Juzhong (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * UH, OMG. Am I too tired to read this, or did Juzhong assert that only white people edit Wikipedia? Dloh  cierekim  05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to. Given how the controversy over these articles arose in the first place that is somewhat ironic. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I asserted that the world might get that impression. You know, due the fact that there's been a longstanding article on stereotypes of African Americans, but when an African American person (I think) tries to create an article on stereotypes of white people, it gets deleted. "Ironically". Juzhong (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per my CSD guide's G10. This is ridiculous that this is being kept.  K50  Dude   ROCKS!   05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Declined. This is not an attack article aimed at a person, nor does it name any specific person (except for the authors of the sources and Eddy Murphy).  Your personal criteria in your user space are not our Criteria for speedy deletion, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * G10 doesn't have to be directed at a person. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity As it was, without sources, it served no purpose but to disparage white people.  And trust me, I do not use CSD lightly, I hate speedy deleters.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 07:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Comments below this line refer to the restored August 2008 version and subsequent changes. 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep Hats off to Freechild, Good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) *Strong Delete Note, my comments here were moved from above, as they pertain to the relisted (currently in question) version of the article. Basically, the article is completely unencyclopedic with no assertion of notability to reliable, third party sources. Notability may be established within the rubric of "White People" or "stereotypes"; but they are not indepedently established as notable, standalone topics. Comments:
 * RE: Relisted version: Keep. First, to reply to Dlohcierekim, yes, only white people edit WP - jk. Second, the current version makes an attempt at verifying information with reliable citations, and the article's pattern gives editors something to work from. The RS in this article prove the topic's notability. • Freechild   'sup?   05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Freechild, would you be able to examine my evaluation of the Reliable Sources which you mention in your comment? They are not, in fact, reliable (various editorials, one group which posits to defend "endangered" white people, etc). The article further contains copyright violations. I do not find that the current article's state comes even remotely close to meeting the community's standard for inclusion. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lazulilasher, thanks for asking me directly - I appreciate that. However, and in response to your section below as well, the topic itself is notable, as a quick scan of Google Books shows at least 63 different mentions of "stereotypes of white people." The article needs work, but the topic has a place simply on the basis of notability. The current format of the article is not flawless; it merely provides something to work from. However, simply because we disagree with the topic does not mean it can't be included; it means that if we're committed to WP as a project we must hold the topic to a high personal standard. In this way we can maintain the validity and ensure the relevance of WP as a whole. That's my thought on this. • Freechild   'sup?   05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Stereotypes so there is something to merge and permanent-protect. As formatted this is a terrible article but some of the referenced material is usable as a section of the suggested target.  In the alternative, userfy to my page so I can merge it later, just be prepared for a huge talk-page edit for GFDL compliance.  OK with deleting edit history from 18:56, 14 September 2008 to 01:22, 4 January 2009 inclusive as speedy-deletable.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC) remove 2nd !vote, besides, I changed my mind to keep the Jan 5/6 rewrite, see below.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Internal logical inconsistency: "Whites are stereotyped as racists. In general whites were stereotyped with positive traits" Since when is racism a positive trait? And what are positive traits? Too pov-ish, sorry.
 * Can we find a reliable, peer-reviewed journal which evaluates the pervasiveness of the white people can't dance stereotype? Is this an overwhelming stereotype, or is it Amero-centric? I am uncomfortable with citing comedian Eddie Murpy as our source (again, we are an encyclopedia).
 * The source "Resistingdefamation.org", which is used 7 times appears to be a website dedicated to "provid[ing] the basis for lawsuits by degraded, endangered, and disparaged white americans". Hardly NPOV (um...endangered? White People are endangered?)
 * That version cites this as a reliable source concerning the storage of oxygen in Europeans and Kenyans. I would feel much more comfortable if we could actually cite the medical journal itself. The cited website appears to be devoted to "Taboo" topics. Does not, IMO, pass as a reliable source.
 * NPOV: Again, I am very concerned about POV in these types of articles. When one writes "stereoptype", what does that mean? And according to whom? Is there a balance?
 * Copyright violations: The abstract from the Basic and Applied Social Psychology article regarding the stereoptype is cut and paste directly from the source and not noted as a quotation (I believe this fails our Fair Use rationale for text). Compare this with the August Revision's text (I added this comment after my initial post to the AfD Lazulilasher (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Unreliable sources: The first source, cited 5 times in the article, appears to link here. This is the "Essay" section of the retirethechief.org website. Hardly a reliable source. (again, I added this comment after the one above, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
 * I would, perhaps, support inclusion of stereotypes of white people in the actual White People article (as long as they are assiduously sourced). This may help defend the text degrade again into an un-encyclopedic mess (again: Jungle Fever? Neurotic?). Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for the African American stereotype of white people that actually gives a proper description of who employs it, explains how it originated, and even relates it to White Men Can't Jump (meaning that we can include that connection in Wikipedia without it being original research):
 * Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Davidwr and expand. You'd think this was allegations of apartheid, given the WP:POINT-making afoot. — CharlotteWebb 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand While this isn't the best article, more of a stub, I can see the value of the topic. Pstanton 06:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
 * Note. I have rewritten the article to prove its notability. • Freechild   'sup?   06:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stereotypes are notable.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply No, in and of themselves no topic is notable without reliable sources to demonstrate such. I removed the entire list of stereotypes from this article because there were no reliable sources given the controversial nature of the subject. • Freechild   'sup?   15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply No, in and of themselves no topic is notable without reliable sources to demonstrate such. I removed the entire list of stereotypes from this article because there were no reliable sources given the controversial nature of the subject. • Freechild   'sup?   15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (or merge): This is looking far better then before! I would be happy for this text to be kept and expanded. I am a bit concerned about the overlap with stereotype, which has a large section on white stereotypes (although most of it is actually about national stereotypes which could just as easily apply to non-white people of the nationalities covered). Either this article could be merged there or the coverage of white stereotypes in stereotype could be merged here. The advantage of consolidation is that it is only one article to monitor for vandalism. The advantage of a separate article is that it allows for a more detailed article and prevents the main article getting too big. Given that this article now has a decent base to expand from, I think it makes sense to keep it. A bit of merging to avoid duplication would also make sense. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply There is a large section on white Americans in the Stereotypes article. The section on white people is small. Different conversations. • Freechild   'sup?   15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep And restore some of the negative material if it can be sourced. Apparently this article has been subjected to radical revision from one version to another. Content that can be reliably sourced from both versions needs to be added to expand the article. Deletion is not the solution for extreme POV problems or a lack of balance. As a version with citations existed, it has been rightly restored. The more negative material, which led to this being tagged for G10, should be added only when sources are located and added to the article. Wholesale removal of cited material and its replacement with uncited material should be avoided. Incremental growth of the article, with care to maintain balance and adherence to reliable sourcing, should see it become substantial and well written. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply It seems to me that you didn't read my note above. I rewrote the article within the last 12 hours and eliminated the poorly-sourced material, just like would be done to any controversial topic. The version with citations had very poor citations, and for that reason it is not prudent to restore any of that information. I parsed what I could from the restored information, and now the article can move forward. • Freechild   'sup?   15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as with stereotypes of Jews, unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed, the general cultural history and impact should be generally discussed in stereotype, and the sourced stuff that's worth saving should go to Stereotypes though I'm at loss of where to merge the white-specific stuff . Did anyone know there's an entire template of these articles? ethnic stereotypes  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey all, I have run a toolserver query on "Stereotypes of X". The results of the query are about 15 different articles that follow the same "pattern". You can find the list at . I hope this sparks further discussion on what to do with all 15 of them, they are likely to all suffer the same possible faults, and should be monitored if they are allowed to remain. ——  nix eagle  16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PLEASE READ. I have rewritten this article, and it appears editors commenting here have not read the current version. As a courtesy to the efforts of all editors involved in this discussion, please read the current before commenting. • Freechild   'sup?   05:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - And expand, not sure what the argument is for deleting the current version. Raitchison (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand; notable topic; sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. Badagnani (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles like these need to be monitored for their tone and POV, but stereotypes are encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - a quality article, which lacks only a rationale for deletion. Wily D 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stereotyping is an important and notable topic, as evidenced by the numerous sources that have been written on it (e.g. Pickering, Racial Stereotypes, in Taylor, Spencer Social Identities (Routledge, 2004) and the numerous articles in its bibliography). JulesH (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this completely new version as of 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC) or any improved version of it. This is very superior to the August 2008 version.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - like most non-FA articles it could use improvement, but it is a notable topic for which we have reliable sources, and 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. (63 potential sources right here  not to mention works in academic journals) --  The Red Pen of Doom  01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the same basis as the other articles. The world is often unpleasant, but we nonetheless write an encyclopedia about it--all of it. DGG (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - don't really care if its kept or not, but can we please rename it to Stereotypes of Caucasians? It seems a tad more professional, and, for that matter, a little more inclusive (everyone should share in the stereotyping goodness). l'aquatique  | &#10017; |  talk  05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Caucasian, this word is "A term sometimes used in the United States to describe White people". Juzhong (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Either Delete & Start from scratch or Keep & Improve - Current article is crappy but the topic is worthy of an article. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hatnote: Not to be confused with Stereotypes of people from the Caucuses :) davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The necessary sources are provided. Suggest rename per L'Aquatique. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as improved. The name might not be brilliant, but deletion is no longer justified. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Stereotypes of Caucasians. There are light skinned non-Causasians dwelling at higher latitudes around the world, and these might not be applicable.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Revert back several months, checked history and article used to be much longer. What, are we going to delete all "Stereotypes of X" articles?  Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems mostly to be synthesis. For example the article discusses stereotypes of British, Irish, Slavs, Africaans people, but these stereotypes are not relevant to their "whiteness", but to their etnicity, they are therefore at best tangential to the article. I'm sceptical of the notability and/or encyclopaedicity of this article. Could be a section of the White people article though. Alun (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has been shown to be a notable subject with significant coverage in reliable sources. Having an article about these stereotypes is not the same as saying that the stereotypes are true. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Fine subject for an article, and could be a scholarly one too. This isn't it, this is a terrible article. Improve, don't delete.--Mongreilf (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- for obvious reasons. deeceevoice (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs clean-up. However the article has several reliable sources demonstrating noteworthy content. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent example of why we don't just delete stuff but actually think about and discuss it first. Good work on the improvements. Pedro : Chat  12:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand--Article is well sourced with a worldwide perspective. --Jmundo (talk) 19:10, 9 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.