Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film (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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Whilst the page itself has some reasonable references for older entries. Wikipedia, as per the guidelines for what Wikipedia is not, is not "a publisher of original thought", which certain entries in the list are. Nor is Wikipedia an indiscriminate. As well, Wikipedia is not a mirror and thus should not simply recreate the entire list from the source. As a result I propose this article for deletion as it primarily speculation and does not provide reasonable information. Whilst a cleanup could be presented as an alternative, I think due to the nature of the article it will attract undue attention and lead to the same scenario again in the future. 7thsanctum (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. This debate began as an addendum to the original AFD; I've moved links and the rationale and templates and whatnot over to this new 2nd nomination. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep because AfD is not clean-up. If there are some acceptable entries and some unacceptable ones, then the latter should be removed instead of the whole article being deleted. However, every single entry in this list references a secondary source. For specific entries, the reliability of a secondary source can be debated, but nothing here is not original research. Also, there is no valid reason not to combine multiple lists for that very topic to make up Wikipedia's own larger list. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, which is clear from the wealth of sources included at the article. Two other points, not strictly relevent to the AfD. There is no "original thought", at least as defined in a Wikipedia context: every entry is accompanied by a source. If sources fail WP:DUE or are misinterpreted then it should be discussed on the talk page. Secondly, the inclusion criteria is not indiscriminate: there are many respectable publications and books discussing the "white savior narrative" as an indentifiable and definable characteristic of fiction. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I was very surprised by this article. I was expecting to find OR, synthesis and listcruft, but it's actually not like that at all. The sourcing is good and most of the film descriptions are concise. As long as the descriptions stay concise and the sourcing solid, this looks to me to sum up a theme that is referenced in film studies and other WP articles, so worth having a WP article to link to. If someone adds cruft, revert them. If it happens too often, protect it. Ask me; I'll do it. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well-sourced and demonstrates notability as-is.  The nomination presents several policy violations as a rationale, but they do not apply.  For example, there is no immediately obvious original research in this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2016 (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.