Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film


 * 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Potentially biased source material and conclusions based on opinion rather than fact. If the article was highlighting that some believe there is a "white savior narrative" then deletion would not be needed; however, assertions made about specific films are all opinions and not objective review of the films. To quote the entry for "12 Years a Slave": "While 12 Years a Slave focused mainly on Northup's resilience, and a Canadian did in reality rescue Northup, the film was identified as the latest cinematic representation of slavery that depicted a white savior." This appears agenda driven; disregarding facts of the film and history in order to claim that the film somehow fits this idea. Furthermore the use of potentially biased online articles as the major source of support does not lend to objectivity. Quoting the page itself: "David Sirota at Salon.com said, 'These story lines insinuate that people of color have no ability to rescue themselves.' This again is an opinion and not a fact, yet it is asserted as fact in the Wiki article. What a person takes away from a piece of art is subjective not objective. The Wiki article attempts to use the subjective interpretation of flims as support for an objective claim. If the article was used to inform the reader that there are people who believe there is a white savior narrative and what those beliefs entail then the article would be objective. However, the article instead attempts to replace objectivity with the subjective opinions and feelings of others in an attempt to support a claims about films that can and have been disputed. Talk pages have been used. When criticism is levied against source material the source material is used to confirm the source material. FauXnetiX (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) — FauXnetiX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As an addition it should be noted that the definition of this trope seems to be any "white" (which can mean anything as indicated by the talk page) hero that assists anyone who isn't "white" makes this position untenable. As for clean up, attempts have been made, but edits are constantly reverted and discussion is avoided on the talk page. Clean up isn't possible when criticism is ignored and opinion is asserted as fact. FauXnetiX (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as a topic that meets WP:GNG. Just Googling for "white savior" film shows numerous results in Google Books and Google Scholar. This is a sociological topic. The book Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness is a collaboration between a sociologist and a film critic. The book mentioned in the "Further reading" section, The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption, is a highly detailed book by a sociologist about the subject. Even if one disagrees with the topic, there is no reason presented to delete it. Discussion about the wording of the topic should be had on the talk page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit, concerns on the talk page led to revising the first paragraph of the article to be based on the Temple University sociologist's assessment as well as the film critic/sociologist's assessment. Journalistic observations were relegated to the second paragraph. In addition, for the list of films, the Hughey book lists nearly all of these as well. I can add references for these films to warrant their listing further. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources show this is a notable topic, whatever one's opinion of it. Borock (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this page deleted. The way the page is written right now, it makes this trope so broad it ceases to be much. For instance, when I questioned whether or not Avatar really qualified to be on the list of films featuring the trope, as the trope is about race of the savior and those saved, I was told that the aliens may not be people of color literally, but symbolically they were. I also pointed out that actor Keanu Reeves is half Chinese and his race never made explicit in The Matrix. This means that the assertion that he is a white savior is questionable and based on assumption. When basically the race of the "white" savior can include half Asians, and the victims can be symbolic people of colors represented by blue aliens or gross prawn ones, then I have to question if there is a line at all for what couldn't qualify assuming it has someone save a bunch of people. Captain Stack (talk)  11:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The case needs to be made that the topic is not notable for Wikipedia, but it passes the general notability guidelines in having plenty of coverage, as I highlighted above. For Avatar, there are especially numerous results just for that particular film in Google Books and Google Scholar. The results highlight that none of the oppressed Na'vi, similar to indigenous peoples, can save themselves, it takes a white savior. As for The Matrix, Keanu Reeves passes as white. That is why his characters in The Matrix and Hardball are sociologically identified as white saviors. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a ton of publications that publish celebrity gossip, but that doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. I'm glad you think Keanu Reeves "passes as white" but it doesn't matter what OTHER people think his race is. He is half Chinese, and is biologically as Chinese as he is white. What he personally prefers to identify as is his decision and not yours. Furthermore, it's important that the CHARACTER'S race is not defined and cannot and should not be assumed. The reason this is relevant is because the trope must be well enough defined to qualify as encyclopedic. If the races can be symbolic or assumed then calling it a "white savior narrative" isn't accurate at all. Furthermore, I get that there are articles about this, but quantity of articles isn't enough in itself. I can find articles that say whatever I want, and I can publish whatever I want on the internet. It won't make it true. Captain Stack (talk)  02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He passes as white in the popular perspective. The detail about his ancestry comes as a surprise to many people. This says, "To most moviegoers, he is an average white guy. He is an archetypal dude. He can be easily accepted as white." It is too narrow to think about needing to define a film character as that of a particular race. Society already defines that for itself, and it reveals this particular trend. Look past the news articles, which are not in depth, and read the sociologists' descriptions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are multiple books about this topic including Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness; Race, Philosophy, and Film; The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption. They specifically give The Matrix as an example.  AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, well known trope in the sociology of film. See, for example, Turner, Graeme Film as Social Practice Routledge 4th Ed. 2006;  Tudor, Andrew Image and Influence: Studies in the Sociology of Film Allen & Unwin 1974. WP does not delete just because some clean-up is needed. P.S.: BTW, Chinese is an ethnicity, not a race. Meclee (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced article on well known trope. Some paragraph breaks wouldn't go amiss though. Also the list portion could probably be replaced by prose which picks a few strong examples rather than it's current scattershot approach. Artw (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rebalance the structure of the article. Currently, we have only a rather long lead section, followed immediately by a list of films. It would be better to have a lead of just one paragraph, followed by one or more sections on discussions of the trope (including its limits and/or its relationship to related tropes) in reliable sources, with the list then following on. Doing this would probably make clearer why certain cases (for instance, Keanu Reeves in The Matrix) are regarded as classic examples of the trope while not conforming with some strict constructions of the terms involved in the usual verbal definition. PWilkinson (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topic is clearly notable.  The sources listed here and in the articles attest to that.  If there are specific issues that need to be addressed, they can take place on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone said "Chinese is not a race." Well, white is not a race either. Borock (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another comment The arguments that the concept is imperfect or even stupid do not make it un-notable.Borock (talk) 14:20, 22 December 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.