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 Delete. Poorly sourced and violates much of the policies on what Wikipedia is not. ELIMINATORJR 22:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of whites

[edit]

The article is presently tagged as OR, lacking references, essay, and USA-specific. These are all true, and it does not seem that the situation is improving: in its present shape, the only way to improve the article is to rewrite it from scratch. Furthermore, the encyclopaedic value of the article, even if rewritten to conform to WP guidelines, is rather dubious. Therefore, I propose to delete this article per WP:NOR and WP:V. -- int19h 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom this warped personal essay and random compilation of movie trivia. "Chucky and Bride of Chucky are blonde, blue-eyed, possessed, and evil"? WTF? wikipediatrix 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's the comment of the original author of the article from its talk page: "Hello. This page is directly copied/pasted from Ethnic stereotypes in American media". I would like to point out that the "Ethnic stereotypes in American media" article underwent a separate AfD process recently, and was deleted. I believe that the reasons presented in that AfD mostly apply to this one as well. -- int19h 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something like this could be a legitimate article, but this isn't it. OR, Essay, etc. MarkBul 15:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of references is not an excuse. An administrator/editoe should find them himself if that botheres him, or should just shut-up. A good article nicely written. It needs references that's all. With the time it will be added references and stereotypes on more white groups and it will beckome even more good. M.V.E.i. 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references may not always be a legitimate reason for deletion, but original research is. As itstands, the article represents what is most likely an observation of the author. If you can find appropriate sources, by all means add the, but I doubt the sources exist, because as I've said before, the article is not even very accurate, providing highly generalized and narrowly focused information. And no, referencing isn't the only problem. Calgary 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all that's written their is often-used stereotypes. I havent ready anything here i havent heard or read or seen somewhere before. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That isn't true. Original research is NOT listed amongst Reasons for Deletion according to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Furthermore, although it is true that some content was probably added just based on the contributor's personal experiences and not actual academic sources, there are definitely sources out there. I'm not an expert about stereotypes of whites, but I know for a fact that there are entire books written about content relevant to this article. --Drenched 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not lack of references as such which is the problem, it is the fact that no reliable sources can possibly be found for the claims in the article, since it's essentially an essay. Therefore, it falls under "article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", which is a valid reason for deletion. -- int19h 05:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this article falls under the "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" reason for deletion...just because it isn't right now, doesn't mean it can't possibly be. Again, I'm not an expert on the topic, but there are sources out there about these issues! All I did was a simple internet search, and I came up with plenty of published material about White identity/image/stereotypes: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. See? Now all someone has to do is read it and rehash it and cite it on this page. I'm not vouching for all of the current content of the article, but this is a legitimate subject matter, and is verifiable. --Drenched 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose I fail at being a white American male, as I could not care less about football, surfing or beer. Seriously, though, this article is a terrible mess of original research and unverified claims. If there is an encyclopedic article to be found along these lines it is so far away from what exists here that a wholesale deletion and starting from scratch would be the best way to find it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude the article is about stereotypes. The thing about stereotypes is that they are not always right. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree. The article may go against point-of-fiew requirements. I find football and surfing boring and hate beer. TheInfinityZero 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE THOSE ARE STEREOTYPES, it doesn't mean that all USAians are really like that, but the stereotype is they are. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the fact that, in spite of the "whites" in the title this article appears to be more a collection of selected stereotypes by nationality, not race. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White are not one ethnic group, white is a race. But that race includes many ethnic group, on each ethnic group from the white race there are written the stereotypes on it. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there is no white race, so the article attempts to encompass all of the many nationalities and ethnicities that could be considered white. Calgary 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a white race, just like there is a mongoloid race and african race. It has nothing to do with nationalism, it's a colection of stereotypes, and those stereotypes exist. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there are both broad and narrow stereotypes. Some stereotypes (e.g. the dumb blonde, etc.) don't pertain to any specific nationality and are applied to Caucasians of various nationalities. Other stereotypes (e.g. the Irish are heavy drinkers) are applied only to specific nationalities. This article discusses both types of stereotypes. --Drenched 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quash! Quick make it go away before it spreads like cancer per theinfinityzero. !paradigm! 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]

Ah? That was weird. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is terribly scattered, attempting to list the many (unrelated) stereotypes that are associated with specific ethnic groups that are commonly grouped as "white" (and keep in mind that "white" is a census term, not an ethnic group). Anyway, the entire thing is jumbled together, and the information itself is original research/very inaccurate. The information, in a sourced form, belongs in the specific articles of the respective ethnic groups. Calgary 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White is a race, and here they listed stereotypes on different ethnic groups from that race. If it needs fixing that's one thing, but not deletion. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not that a good article couldn't be written--- David Allen Grier, Eddie Murphy, John Boy and Billy, and other comedians have made many a good observation about the stereotypical white American. This article, as pointed out by others, is actually an umbrella for stereotypes about different European-American groups... Wasps, Limeys, Micks, Wops, Krauts, etc. and it's too broad. There are sources for that type of information. William R. Helmreich wrote a book about stereotypes called The Things They Say Behind Your Back, and I'm sure there are others. Mandsford 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you dont vote delete but Evolve, because what you say is that the theme has place to be but it should be upgraded by the writing level. M.V.E.i. 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, dumbass, I vote delete. Let someone who has some talent write an article. Mandsford 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of those !voting to keep have made a convincing refutation of the idea that this is OR, and much of the non-U.S. content is made up of a national stereotypes, not racial ones. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AND THAT'S WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT. M.V.E.i. 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of synthesis linked together under a broad topic Corpx 06:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, SYNTH and inherently POV. Thin Arthur 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree that this article is "inherently POV." It's POV if you try to perpetuate the belief that any of the stereotypes are true, but it isn't POV to say that these stereotypes exist. --Drenched 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed some vandalism from this article a while back using Vandal Proof, and did not give it a serious look regarding its seriousness at the time. However, the point of this article is already covered under Stereotype, and there is really no need for an article like this regarding any race/ethnicity/self-identifier. This article is clearly WP:OR, and certainly a collection of trivia placing it at odds with Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Hiberniantears 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it has not the collection of the stereotypes themselves like here. M.V.E.i. 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some background: this is an article originally split from Ethnic stereotypes in American media with sister pages Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks, Stereotypes of Latinos, Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites, and Stereotypes of American Indians. Stereotypes of the various nationalities encompassed within the Caucasian race exist and have been academically studied and should have an entry in this encyclopedia. Bias and OR as cited in many of the deletion arguments above are major flaws of this article, but are not a grounds for deletion according to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and can be corrected. Furthermore, this article is not saying that the stereotypes listed are true. A lot of people making deletion arguments saying "Hey, I'm White and I don't like football, this page is crap!" don't seem to understand what a stereotype is: (at the stereotypes wiki article, it specifically says "Stereotypes are rarely completely accurate, based on some kernel of truth, or completely fabricated"). The purpose of the article is to document existing stereotypes and what scholars have to say about them, not to perpetuate the stereotypes as true. I feel that the subject matter is legitimate and deserving of an article, and a lot of the deletion arguments either point out flaws that aren't grounds for deletion, or misunderstand what the article is about entirely. --Drenched 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites was also merged into this article, which is another reason to keep it. And i totally agree with you. M.V.E.i. 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Drenched. But it includes numerous OR statements, as correctly noted by AfD nominator.Biophys 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there has been some canvassing going on: see [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. MER-C 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what's the problem with that? I called up for some of those that were involved in the article ("it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions"). I remind you that 2 of those i called voted Delete. I notified them about the discussion, and stated my own opinion and what i did for the article. I dont understand what's the problem with that. I didnt say "you must", i said that i hope and i think. Besides only now i saw that there are laws against that, hhh it's also the first time in my life i saw a word Canvassing. M.V.E.i. 09:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless, full of OR, and unnecessary. Jmlk 1 7 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging your discretion as an admin, and of course you're not obligated to explain your vote, but I am curious about your reasoning behind your belief that the page is "useless" and "unnecessary." Do you think all the ethnic-stereotypes pages (e.g. Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians) are unnecessary and should be deleted, or just one for white stereotypes? --Drenched 02:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useless?? Usefull, and very. A fact that i for example searched for an article with the theme on the Wikipedia already shows it's usefull. If you dont like it's "full of OR", dont complain fix it yourself. It's easy to say whats wrong, but trying improving is a different story. M.V.E.i. 08:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I normally do try and fix articles, but I don't think this one should even be around. Jmlk 1 7 08:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, how many articles did you create? I just noticed that to delete, nominate or vote for deletion for you is like kicking a stone. I just guess that someone who knows the process of creating articles and how not easy it is would be more smart with the thing. M.V.E.i. 08:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well M.V., I have like 17,000 edits over the past two years, including several creations. I prefer not to create them, rather, I do my admin chores around here usually instead. But beyond that, I feel I no longer need to explain my delete !vote. Jmlk 1 7 08:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "edits" statistics is nothing. You add a delition template and bingo, you have another edit. Ad a word, another edit. As i understood from your words, you try to show your not useless by being brutal. I know real administrators, who create articles, who really contribute to Wikipedia and they behave smart and respectfuly, because they know the process from the inside. M.V.E.i. 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you miss the point - It's a usefull article, a theme that has place to be, and as i can see different editors improve it and add information to it all the time. Those who got insulted here by the sterotypes, it ain't execly shows their to smart. Stereotypes means this information is mostly not correct. A smurt man won't get insulted on humour, i'm half Russian half Jewish and i added both to the Russians section, and re-created the Jews section. Those who say it lacks references or has to much "or's", dont be lazy, take part, fix. And besides, those are NOT reasons to delete. Those are reasons to keep the article so editors could come and improve it. With the time it's level will go up. The fact that so much editors edited it and added information already shows it has place to be. M.V.E.i. 08:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix.--Steven X 10:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~ Wikihermit 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - this needs a helluva lot of work, but this is not the place to sort that out -- Roleplayer 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jmlk17. Article is pretty well useless. Lychosis ^T/C 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many here explained why it's useful and interesting. M.V.E.i. 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, i'll explain again. I always wanted to know what the stereotypes on Irish and Scots are (except the skurt), and here i found out what they are. OFFCOURSE i dont agree with them, but at least i know what they are now. Why is it useful? i know how they were treated and insolted by the society, and i can find how to prove that the stereotypes are false. M.V.E.i. 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is full of synthesis of different white nationality stereotypes without an over-arching white stereotype. The few citations that are included are for specific nationality stereotypes. There may be no stereotypes of whites, since whites are the majority group where they live. Only minorities get stereotyped.----^DarkTea © 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White are a race, not nationality. So this page collects stereotypes about different nationalities from the white race. Theres no other way. M.V.E.i. 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I respectfully disagree that minorities are the only ones who get stereotyped. Sure, they may get it worse, but there are overarching "White" stereotypes too. If White stereotypes don't exist, how do you account for labels such as WASP, dumb blonde, and white trash? --Drenched 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities? We Russians are the 7th biggest nation in the world by population and 1rst by the size of the land, minority?? Actually mostly those who are usually majorities get stereotyped. Actually for now we mostly lack the minorities but have mostly the big once stereotyped. M.V.E.i. 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article can be improved. It is important to keep as part of the series of racial stereotypes. Bad writing, lack of citations, and editorializing are flaws that can always be corrected. — Emiellaiendiay 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split - if possible. Much of the content should be deleted as OR, the remainder split into separate articles: Stereotypes of White Americans, Sterotypes of English People, Stereotypes of French People, etc. GideonF 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will just be many little articles. M.V.E.i. 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will.GideonF 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — pathetic OR. Not a single published reliable or academic source is listed. --Hillock65 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if that bothers you, YOU find them, voting delete is the easiest thing. Besides, it's NOT a reason for deletion. It's a reason to put those cool citation needed things near arguable statements, it means the article needs to be improved, but not deleted. And what "academic source" do you want?? Sereotypes are rarely there, and mostly in movies or cartoons. M.V.E.i. 11:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry. Bearian 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((split)). Already the contorted title "stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race" shows that this isn't a valid topic. Salvage whatever is valid and do articles about individual ethnic stereotypes (Dutch, French, German, English, etc.), if there is sufficient sourced material. dab (𒁳) 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No one has given any valid reasons to delete the article, besides OR, POV, lack of references, etc. These are not valid criteria for deletion. If we're going to delete this article, we might as well delete all of the other stereotypes articles: Stereotypes of blacks, Stereotypes of Asians, Stereotypes of Hispanics, Stereotypes of Native Americans, etc. None of these articles meet the criteria for deletion, and neither does this one. Jagged 85 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. By those arguments we could close 2/3 of Wikipedia. M.V.E.i. 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.