Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White guilt (2nd nomination)


 * 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, again. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

White guilt

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An OR topic, without good, concrete sources. Was nominated back in April, with a "no consensus" reaches, including many "keeps" stating that more sources were necessary, etc. Jmlk  1  7  09:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The concept is notable and adequately sourced. And this AFD is too soon after the last one. Colonel Warden 09:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Where's the record of the first AfD? Was it overwritten by this one? GlassCobra 10:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. It looks like that was what happened. futurebird 14:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Important topic in sociology. Although the article still needs work it has improved and should continue to do so. futurebird 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The last AFD was in April 2007. Isn't it too soon to bring this up again? futurebird 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Five months is a long time in AFD, especially when the previous result was "no consensus". Articles have been re-nominated less than 48 hours after an AFD. Masaruemoto 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. By the Hated Google Test, we have 183,000 ghits, 1,670 News hits, 898 Scholar hits, for a phrase with few or no other uses. Several scholarly books use this phrase as their title, or a significant part of it. I'm afraid this nomination may have confused WP:OR with WP:IHAVENTHEARDOFIT. Nor do I understand the "original research & unverified claims" header over such neutral and uncontroversial statements. A refimprove tag would be appropriate, but not this over-reaction. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 18:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep highly notable concept, OR problems can be fixed. Article also seems to have improved greatly since nomination.  Yahel  Guhan  21:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions.   — Yahel   Guhan  21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; this AFD needs to be fixed as the nominator just deleted the previous AFD to start this discussion. Masaruemoto 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * problem solved.  Yahel  Guhan  21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The concept has been around for decades. Shelby Steele recently wrote an Op-ed on it in The Wall Street Journal last week (and I see he's one of the two sources in our article). It's also largely what George Bush was talking about in the 2000 campaign and afterward when he mentioned "the soft bigotry of low expectations". It is either a part of or something related to "liberal guilt" (84,000 ghits). Whether or not it exists as a feeling is beside the point -- it's a WP:Notable concept, both important and able to be covered. There are multiple (two), reliable sources. There could be 20,000 reliable sources from the past five decades or so. If "White guilt" didn't exist, there would be no support whatever from caucasian Americans for the idea of "reparations" to blacks -- which, by the way, has this interesting article: Reparations for slavery Noroton 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep adequately sourced. --Quoth nevermore 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The charge of WP:Original research does apply to some of the sentences at the bottom, which need to be given citations. That's fixable, though, and shouldn't be fatal. Noroton 22:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Improve the article if it needs it, but it is notable. It will take a lot of work to make it NPOV, and like many race-related articles I think it will need some protection. We need more administrator awareness of patterns as noted here: list of Ethnic groups-related deletions.  --Lizzard 15:49, 1 October 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.