Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing white woman syndrome

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 snowball keep. Keep in mind that WP:GHITS isn't a real valid deletion reason. Attack page concerns should be noted though. Non-admin Closure. Whs itc hy 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing white woman syndrome[edit]

Utterly fails notability test. Citations are all nonsense and do not mention appear to mention term except for a few blogs. Totally fails "google test" with around 600 mentions of this term, none of them on reputable sites, just blogs, etc. Appears to be POV pushing and attempt to assist in fabrication of a new expression. Fourdee 03:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As an attack article for a start. I'll abstain from tagging as speedy, as it's better this goes through AfD so it then can be CSD'd in event of recreation. The google test is not good to use in AfD's. The entire article is loaded with POV, fails WP:N and seems to be entirely original research. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The purpose of discussion. LILVOKA 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though used for humorous effect in at least one or two things I can think of, in the end it's better off as a note in some relevant controversy article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article itself lists several valid references, and this [1] search gets plenty of results for the specific phrase. If that's not enough notability, I don't know what is. Or is CNN not a reputable source? NPR? The Independent? I'm also going to say this isn't an attack page. Criticism is real, it does happen, removal of criticism that can be validly sourced is censorship. Sorry, but there does have to be coverage of negative information on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known bias. John Vandenberg 04:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove all the OR, including all the unsourced information in the "Examples" section. There are sources from the Washington Post, USA Today , MSNBC discussing this phenomenon described in this article. I found a transcript of an interview on CNN where "Missing White Women Syndrome" is discussed. It exists, though once all the OR is removed the article will be much smaller. Masaruemoto 04:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing White Women Syndrome. Masaruemoto 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable and highly-discussed concept, though we should definitely remove the examples that haven't been explicitely referred to as examples by reliable sources. Maxa megalon 2000 05:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources have devoted substantial coverage to this media habit of 24/7 coverage of photogenic white women and girls who are missing, while largely ignoring minorities and males. Examples of criticism of the phenomenon include CNN [2] and [3], The Independent (London) [4], and the Washington Post [5]. Satisfies WP:N and WP:A. Contrary to what the nominator says, a search on Google for "missing white woman" exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors yields over 10,000 hits and "missing white girl" yields over 13,000. Many article have been written about this in addition to those included as external links or references. Every day yields more examples, and the phenomenon is frequently a subject of complaint in relation to each new instance. Edison 05:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article. Those who wish to delete this generally are "Hilaries" (ie, White-wealthy-feminists). For reference, please search Wikipedia for the strife that currently exists between White and African-American feminist organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but arguments about the people proposing the deletion that are of this nature are not appropriate. It is far better to comment on the content and not the contributors whenever possible. This sort of statement is simply inflammatory and hurtful. FrozenPurpleCube 06:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some valid media sources covering this phenomena, this article need cleanup not deletion. --MichaelLinnear 05:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have pointed out above, this is a very real phenomenon that is the subject of plenty of reliable independent sources. The article as-is is full of unsourced info and listcruft and needs to be pruned big time, but there's definitely potential for an encyclopedic article on this notable topic. Krimpet (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, or rename to Missing young pretty thin middle-class American white woman syndrome. --Charlene 10:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known bias, especially recently. (Kelsey Smith and Madeleine McCann come to mind. Article could use some rewriting so it isn't made up mainly of lists. --Lmblackjack21 10:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelLinner. Needs serious pruning of examples though. --Lou.weird 11:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've heard a few other, similar names, for this phenomenon, but it's an important issue in media bias and in the knee-jerk legislation that results in laws named after victims. Article links to several reliable sources; article just needs cleanup and external links turned into inline cites. Squidfryerchef 12:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. suggest merging Missing White Women Syndrome into the article Squidfryerchef 12:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well-known phenomenon, although I'm not 100% sure about the title. --Itub 12:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do some massive cleanup work. There's a lot of OR in this article, and the vast majority of the "examples" seem only to be an attempt to prove a point. The only "examples" that should be kept are ones with accompanying reliable sources documenting the disproportionate media attention (or lack thereof) and not stack them in an attempt to push a point. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many examples of notability above. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 16:12, 8 June 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.

Keep - it is a well known "trend" in american news --Philip Laurence 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]