Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's OK to be white

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to be white (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. Memes may be speedy deleted but this has several sources albeit not inline citations. Also not notable on its own. Article is not new either. Some sources are quite recent so the article might also be WP:TOOSOON. Ꞷumbolo 21:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article would be an act of racism. Don't do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.48.71 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep easily passes GNG.
  • www.metronews.ca/news/edmonton/2017/10/31/pro-white-message-taped-to-native-studies-building-day-after-racist-pumpkin-incident.html
  • http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/its-okay-to-be-white-signs_us_5a01c91ce4b0368a4e87165e
  • http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2017/11/08/why-finding-it-s-okay-to-be-white-posters-at-the-u-of-c-doesn-t-surprise-anyone.html

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• My gut is that it would be best to merge this to some article representing a higher level of abstraction to this idea. We should keep the information, but this is a very short article on what may be a very fleeting meme. bd2412 T 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly, it could be merged to pol or, as a last resort, to 4chan (which is a FA!). Ꞷumbolo 08:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be deleted or merged per WP:NOTNEWS point 2: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". No sign of lasting significance for this prank/meme. Could go under 4chan; eventually might be included as a sentence or two in an article on race relations in the United States. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 4chan per above--DynaGirl (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Change vote to Keep due to ongoing coverage. Seems to meet WP:GNG. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, International coverage, different incidents, easily passes wp:gng. --GRuban (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, several different articles of event and reaction all ober the country, it fit wp:gng. --Aréat (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's a meme for which we have a few decent sources from the span of a few days. Notability requires lasting significance. If there were a huge amount of coverage in these few days such that we could assume it would continue, that would be one thing, but this seems like it's more likely that it won't be lasting. No opinion on a merge target. Don't know that 4chan would be right for WP:WEIGHT purposes though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Given there has continued to be coverage, I've struck my delete vote. Still not clear whether we would look back a year from now and call it "lasting coverage" but it's trending that way sufficiently that I don't see a reason to support deleting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: to 4chan#Internet memes. 4chan seems apt at making memes which attract transient media attention due to their controversial nature. I doubt any lasting notability independent of 4chan will be available, and at any rate it's too soon to tell. For now, best just to merge; Wikipedia isn't a meme database. Janet-O (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rich Farmbrough. groig (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several people have asked whether there will be ongoing coverage. Here are some articles from just the past 2 days from 2 rather widely separated locations: Nov 13, Grand Haven, Michigan; Again; Nov 13, Vancouver, Washington;Nov 14, Washington State University. I'm going to go out on a limb to say, yes, there will be ongoing coverage. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it keeps coming: Newsweek, Saturday, Nov 19 (large article); The State (South Carolina), yesterday, Nov 20 (not very large) --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG per Rich Farmbrough. Aleccat 01:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and selective Merge to 4chan - (unless someone identifies a better merge target.) That's what I had already written, based on the shallow sources on the page, and above, all more of less shallow breaking news reports like this WaPo headline":'‘It’s okay to be white’ signs and stickers appear on campuses and streets across the country. But I try to be fair, so before clicking "save changes" I read the WaPo story, which is INDEPTH reporting; so is this one in Jacobite The Asymmetric Meme Warfare of “It’s OK to be White”, this in the Washington Times: OK to be white’ campaign rankles higher education, and several others. There does seem to be enough here to KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. A 4chan orchestrated papering of schools is a single event. No notability beyond that so no encyclopedic value beyond this. jps (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing that guideline. WP:ONEEVENT deals with articles about people - this is a protest or event as far as I can tell. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could try to be a little less pedantic and look at the spirit of the guideline. In any case, the exact same principle applies to events. So WP:LASTING then. jps (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're different incidents, in different, widely separated locations (by the width of a continent!), with different people involved. But even so, we've got thousands of articles about single events, see Category:Events_by_month for example. Some of the events became Wikipedia:Featured articles, such as Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner after it survived its nomination for deletion. This series of events seems to have plenty of lasting impact, as you can see by the news articles that keep being written about it throughout the course of this AFD, even. --GRuban (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:LASTING: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT which says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment another source just today, Toronto Sun. The hits just keep on coming. --GRuban (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Keep" supporters: What about this has "enduring significance" per AusLondonder?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You know, the coverage has become overwhelming. Passes WP:GNG just too well. Plus, this is more than mere shock news and viral phenomena; this is continued coverage. Found more sources:

• The Diamondback
• New Jersey 101.5

It's just that after the Unite the Right rally, and other conflicts over race on campus, the public is more aware of racial events. I expect this event to be referred back to later. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficiently covered in press to pass WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easily enough mainstream coverage. There are loads more noteworthy sources to add too. Mdmadden (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do see a continuing drumbeat of media reported incidents, and and today yet another INDEPTH essay: Is It OK to Be White? Meme Wars: the insular, circular, and viraltastic history of a racist idea. I do continue to think keep, perhaps revisit in six months.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Right-wing blogger arrested at 'It's OK to be white' speech at UConn CNN, today. Fights break out at ‘It’s OK To Be White’ event on UConn campus Russia Today, today. I think we can close this. --GRuban (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2017 (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.