Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film (3rd 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

A tendentious "white people are bad"-type thesis masquerading as an article based on the work of one academic. The list-type nature has resulted in constant bickering (e.g., multiple long-running threads on the TP regarding "The Matrix") over what should be included. Noting that at least two others likewise think it ought to be heaved, I'm nominating. Froglich (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I note that the article has been nominated twice before. Can anyone provide a logical reason as to why they think this article is going to improve?--Froglich (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding your addendum: both of the other discussions were clear keeps. At any rate, there's no policy that articles prone to bickering should be deleted. clpo13(talk) 21:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As mentioned in the previous AFD's this narrative is noted in critical and scholarly research. It clearly meets WP:GNG. The suggestion that it is a "white people are bad" article (it is actually much more than this) leads to pointing out that WP:NOTCENSORED applies. All WikiP articles are open to editing and improvement - that happens with discussion on the talk page for the article - not by endless AFD's. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While I do stipulate that the anencephalics who presently dictate academia have indeed awarded the indefatigably bow-tied Matthew W. Hughey with an associate professorship in the low-rent-district of hyphenated-weeble studies, I would strenuously object to the premise that the output of a fellow whose entire career has consisted of moaning about "Hegemonic Whiteness" in any way constitutes "critical" (in the "important" or "necessary" sense of the definition) research.--Froglich (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the real agenda for this AfD. --Drmargi (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there it is. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: this nomination just reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As others have stated it is well referenced by reliable sources and surpasses our general notability guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve There appears to be sufficient significant coverage in the works of Hughey, Schultz et al to meet notability guidelines; though the independence of those from the theory of the trope could be questioned. Passing mentions of the trope in individual films make up the bulk of the article's references, and do not provide significant coverage required to add to notability, but I conceive that there is still a sufficiency. Improve the article through removal of the contentious list, and refinement of the prose to focus on a discussion & documentation of the trope itself, including attribution of POV; rather than focusing on collating purported uses. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep because the topic is notable through coverage in multiple reliable sources. The trope has even been discussed in recent movies The Legend of Tarzan and Free State of Jones. The nominator simply does not like it because they apparently feel offended by the topic (calling it the "animating spirit of anti-white racism" on the talk page). This nomination in spite of overwhelming evidence about the topic shows an attempted POV pushing just because they are squeamish about the topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a reasonably-referenced article on a topic covered in multiple reliable sources. It is both notable and necessary for a modern encyclopedia. Meanwhile the nominator Froglich reveals his/her own anti-academic bias on both the nomination and his/her comments: "the anencephalics who presently dictate academia" So the concept is used in academia, but in the nominator's opinion academics have anencephaly ( absence of a major portion of the brain) and should be disregarded. Troubling behavior by the nominator which makes it hard to assume good faith for his/her nomination. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is clearly referenced, which is what articles are based upon. Before nominator and their "white people are bad" notion tries to delete American History X: the article is about media representation, not about actual white people.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you felt obliged to paste my name into your fantasy-projected non sequitur including me within a group comprised of myiad other individuals purportedly unable to tell the difference between a this-topic-irreverent Hollywood film (whose associated article I have neither ever edited nor submitted for AfD) and an originally-researched Wikipedia list article unlikely to ever approach a semblance of neutrality while including its list -- could you please hold still while I smack you upside the head with a salmo trutta fario while reciting the Pastafarian anthem? *Smack!* Thanks... --Froglich (talk) 07:55, 18 August 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.