- Argentine people of European descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article was deleted by Beeblebrox because "a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article" (see: User talk:Beeblebrox#Speedy deletion). This "same article" refers to "White Argentine," which I did not write, but was deleted on February 11 by Beeblebrox because it was a "synthesis" (see: here). I felt at the time that the article was improperly (perhaps offensively) titled, and argued that it nevertheless contained a lot of valid facts and history that could be rescued by excising references to "white people" (the "construct") and refocusing the article on the relevant facts and history.
I believe that Beeblebrox is simply using his administrative privileges to have an article deleted without providing spefific reasons. He made blanket statements accusing me of simply "rewriting" something he had deleted, simply beacuse it looks similar to the other one. I added the new entry being very aware that it would be scrutinized for any bias, racism, or synthsized constructs. I began by cutting out the unsourced list of notable examples in the infobox, any mention of "white Argentines" (except to say the term is, indeed, atypical of Argentine speech), and any inference thereof. I left only the history and data, which are well-referenced.
Lest we forget, the existence of Argentine people of European descent is common knowledge (for background: [1]), and in no way derides other communities in the country. Nor would the article fail to meet standards of fairness, sources, and thoroughness met by those on White Latin Americans, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- relevant previous discussions - Article originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Argentine and then Special:DeletedContributions/Sherlock4000(admin only) suggests that Sherlock4000 recreated the article at Argentine of European descent on 11 February which was then moved to Argentine people of European descent at 00.00 5 march, am article Sherlock4000 created on 4 March. (not sure how they moved the article on top of a previous article but that may have been doable as they was only one edit. At 00.13 on 5 March Beeblebrox nominated the article for deletion unger G4 as recreation of White Argentine and the page was deleted G4 by Ronhjones at 01.06 5 March. (Not sure if the above times are UTC or the offset for my timezone which is UTC+3). At 00.39 (my time) Sherlock4000 left a message at User_talk:Beeblebrox#Speedy_deletion and then posted at Wikipedia:ANI#Hasty_decision at 03.01 (my time]. The ANI discussion centred around issues to do with Sherlock4000 not attributing text he had used from White European to the previous editors and pointing out that Ronhjones deleted the article not Beeblebrox. At 04.22 Sherlock4000 left a message for Ronhjones User_talk:Ronhjones#Deleted_article accusing Beeblebrox of misusing admin tools (not sure how nominating an article for G4 is an admin action but there you go) and then raised this DRV at 04.34 - i.e 10 minutes later. There clearly is admin abuse going on here but, as usual, its the admin being abused by a user who fails to follow set procedures and automatically assumes abuse of power when the issue is that they decided to ignore a consensus, recreated an article without proper attribution and then ran around casting aspersions at Beeblebrox when they had already been told that Beebelbrox was not the deleting admin - although, frankly, I would expect any editor with nearly 4000 edits to be capable of doing even the most basic fact checking before running to every admin board they can think of. Endorse by default. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for comments, Spartaz, but please slow down: you're misrepresenting both what happened and what I stated.
- I never used the word "abuse" to refer to Beeblebrox (he did), I simply think that his decision had been "arbitrary, almost capricious" and that he was "jumping to conclusions." Which he was, since what you left out your briefing was that the central objection to the "White Argentine" article that had been deleted on Feb. 11 (which wasn't mine, and had been there for years) was that it referred to a "synthesis" based on a "social construct" (i.e, white people). I did not "recreate a deleted article": It does resemble the other one because I kept the data tables, general sequence, and the pictures in the lower text referring to some of the lawmakers whose policies encouraged immigration, and if you can access the cache, you'd see that I took care to delete not only references to anyone being "white," but also unreferenced assertions to that effect and infobox images of notable people, since they were not properly sourced as such. Finally, I did not "run to every admin board I could think of, casting aspersions": I brought it up with the Incidents board, and they referred me to the Deletion Review board, where I simply described his accusations and what happened.
- Despite the fact that the other page had not "been deleted by consensus," but rather by the decision of one man (Beeblebrox), I agree that "white" is, strictly speaking, a construct, which is why I not only renamed the article, but also reworded it to exclude any reference to anyone being "white," and retained only the history and its pertinent statistical data regarding Argentines of European descent (all referenced). If anyone who can would like to attach the previous article's history to this one, no one would be happier than I, since my only significant contributions were these last edits.
- The fact remains that there are Argentine people of European descent, there are numerous similar articles, that the subject is of genuine interest, and that they're missing an article. They are notable (as they number around 30 million and are central to the nation's dynamic, such as it is), distinct from other ethnic groups (please see list above), and distinct from the numerous European immigrant nationalities themselves, since most Argentines of European descent today have forbears from numerous countries, and rarely just one (not unlike their counterparts in the United States, for example).
- As I mentioned to Beeblebrox, I'd revert any attempt to bring back the idea that this group of people should be labeled "white," as well as language which would describe them as superior to other communities in Argentina. As my parents can tell you, everyone rose and fell together (except for the well-connected, but that's the world we live in).
- Thank you.
- Sherlock4000 (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You gave the deleting admin, Ronhjones, 15 minutes from the time of asking him to reconsider his decision. Did you consider that he might not be online, and indeed hasn't been since you asked? Stifle (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The question isn't the timing etc., the question is whether or not the article is sufficiently different in the key problem areas for G4 to apply. A considerable number of objections in the AfD was over the name, and that was a significant element in the closing. Without those objections, there would not have been consensus to delete, nor would much of the closing statement have applied. In addition to the title, the article has been cleaned up considerably, and has been significantly reworded to talk specifically about European ancestry, rather than the vaguer concepts of ethnicity. but does retain the basic structure. I would suggest restoration to user space and further rewriting--a good rewriting of material like this takes a while. Perhaps those with objections to the article as it stood could participate in that, in the interests of NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Contrary to what DGG suggests, the issue with the 'white Argentine' article wasn't the title, it was the content, which used a synthesis of different sources to create an 'ethnicity' out of thin air. I all that has been done is a replacement of 'white' with 'European' then the problems remain. We already have many articles on ethnicity and descent in Argentina, and one that purports to demonstrate the separateness (or worse 'superiority', as Sherlock4000 seem so imply above: "...central to the nation's dynamic") of those of European descent, in the face of reliable evidence that the Argentinian majority population is not of solely European descent at all, but is instead the result of successive waves of migration (mostly from Europe, but also elsewhere) intermixing with the indigenous population, is still a synthesis, and unlikely to remain unsuitable for Wikipedia article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-read the discussion, and I do not read it as you do. The bulk of the discussion was about the allegedly unjustifiable nature of using the word "White", especially in view of its possible connotations in the country. But yes, I did not want to mention it first, but I see the question arising from exactly what you say above, the view that the european contribution was in some sense superior. I do not see that in the article; but I am aware of the historical and social reasons why the topic might be seen as having such an implication (as perhaps it does in all or most countries in the region), and perhaps we need a section on why and to what extent it has that racist connotation. I think the arguments for deletion are a preference for not discussing the subject, and the relevant principle is not censored. The way to deal with obnoxious things like racism is to discuss them with a NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should've just had a deletion review for White Argentinas. Indigenous peoples in Argentina and Argentinian_people list Asian Argentine, Afro Argentine, Argentine Jews, Argentine Amerindians, and Arab Argentine for races, as well as White or sometimes European Argentinians, all of which the government census surely acknowledges. There are also dozens of articles for people descendant from specific countries such Argentine American, Argentine Australian, Argentine Brazilian, etc. See [2] for some additional ones. Every ethnic group has its own article except one. That seems rather odd. The ethnic group obviously exist. You can debate what the name should be elsewhere. I'd say whatever their official government census calls them, should be the official title. Every single nation has an article for every ethnic group in it. Its odd to selectively start erasing some of them. Dream Focus 13:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you clearly don't understand the difference between 'race' and 'ethnic group', and are also apparently unaware that many countries do not include questions on ethnicity in a census (including, of course, Argentina), and have apparently read none of the debate relating to the 'White Argentine' article deletion, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. In any case, if you think other articles should be deleted, this isn't the place to suggest it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Determining whether the new article is sufficiently different or improved is best done at AFD rather than by admin fiat. As the article is not currently visible, we are unable to verify the validity of this decision. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- concerns were raised about adequate sourcing, inappropriate synthesis, relevance etc. that were not addressed by the side advocating the retention of this article. It is up to the side advocating the inclusion of material to defend and justify it, and this was not done effectively. The closing administrator gave a detailed and sensible closing rationale, and did right in not merely taking the cowardly way out. Reyk YO! 20:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
