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 Consensus to delete - Consensus seems to be that this is not an encyclopedic topic. While those seeking to keep did demonstrate that sources exist they did not demonstrate that this had any notability beyond being a fringe theory. Thus the result is deletion without prejudice against recreation if you can address the concerns in this AfD.

If anyone is interested in merging to Southern United States they can request undeletion for the purposes of merging, but I don't see a consensus for that here. I would suggest getting consensus at Talk:Southern United States first as it is a long article and probably needs to pick and choose its content. Chillum 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

White Southerners (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Southerners Stats)

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

Unsourced; original research. A topic like this would need a lot of backing research considering the controversy surrounding it. Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Article utterly fails WP:GNG. I'm finding a few blogs and some other sources that refer to "southerners" being a socioethnic group, but nothing of substance and reliability that would warrant an article. - Aoidh ( talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete!!! Surely a hoax? Alec Station ( talk) 12:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Seems to be written to make some kind of point, or let off steam, or whatever. Merge to Southern United States. The article is much better now, but the material is already covered in the main article. The info here is worthwhile and could be added there. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• It's not a hoax and I'm not letting off steam. This is a legit article about the Southern ethnicity. We are a separate people with our own history, culture, etc and I thought it'd be a good idea to type up a Wikipedia article about us. Now mind you I have a bit of a problem with procrastinating and I am taking the time tonight to really make the article look good. I have sources, etc. I am currently planning it out on a word document. So please, don't delete it.( MelungeonEire ( talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)) reply
• I ask that you don't delete this. I've put a bit of work on the article and I ask all of you to help me with it. Down South, we consider Southern to be an ethnicity and it has been proven by various historians that we are ethnically and culturally distinct from the rest of the United States. I plan on continuously working on this article from now on. ( MelungeonEire ( talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)) reply

• Proven by which "various historians"? I see you added a rather large amount of sources, but none of them seem to support this article's subject. This source mentions "white Southerners" only once and not in an ethnic context, this doesn't seem to mention it at all, and most of the sources have no page numbers whatsoever. In what way do any of these sources support the content of the article, and why go through the trouble of adding them all without a specific page number? - Aoidh ( talk) 09:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Merge to Southern United States. The page creator went on to edit the George Patton to link to his own creation. There is not a lot of content to the article and I find the timing of its creation to the furor over the Confederate battle flag curious. We went through this shuffle earlier this year when editors started creating pages trying to prove that the southern states were all, briefly, independent countries in 1861.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I had similar feelings about the timing too. I thought that I subsequently checked the article history and found that it was created before the Charleston church shooting, but looking again now, it was created the day after. Nonetheless, I don't think we should judge whether the topic is worth covering on the basis of the intentions of the article creator. In fact, if we can have well-written, sourced coverage, that might actually deter people from writing their own soapbox coverage (maybe). Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Page creator is also suspected of editing page as User:PennsilfaanischTatar (SPI pending).-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the sources listed support the existence of an ethnic group called "Southerners", which I doubt. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That said, one author not included amongst the sources who does view Southerners as an ethnic group is John Shelton Reed. Whether his work alone is enough to justify an article that asserts that Southerners are an ethnic group, I doubt. Personally, I would just include a brief note in the Southern United States article to the effect that some scholars consider there to be a distinct Southern ethnic identity. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reed's publications on this include a chapter in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. I've struck my delete comment for now, pending more discussion of the issues raised by the Reed sources. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Notice: I have rewritten the article based on reliable sources that I was able to access. Whether this merits it being saved, I will leave to others to judge. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Larry. I crossed out my delete and changed to merge to Southern United States. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 01:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree with this merge. Great work Larry. My main concern from here is the edgy nature of this article. I'm not saying it should be excluded because of that, but I would encourage any editors reading this to add it to their watch page, because I could see this page being abused quite quickly. Sulfurboy ( talk) 01:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I've got the article on my watchlist, but I'd be happy with a merge to Southern United States because it seems to be a pretty niche view that Southerners constitute an ethnic group, and better covered there than in its own article unless more sources can be found. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Pinging Aoidh, Alec Station and Gaarmyvet in case they want to revisit their comments in light of my rewrite. Cordless Larry ( talk) 06:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've responded below, thanks for the heads up. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete - This article makes me cringe! Southerners in and of themselves are not an "ethnic group" anymore than mid-westerners, northerners, or any other part of the United States. There is nothing WP:NPOV about leading off with "White Southerners" as the criteria. Is the author implying that anyone without white skin cannot be considered a Southerner? We don't need this flawed POV, cited with decades old sourcing, merged. This has one point of view, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. No way. — Maile ( talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• I agree, that single opinion does not warrant an article, as WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, not one (questionable) individual. Especially given that this single author's opinions are over 30 years old, if there were any merit to this article's subject someone would have picked up on it and there would be sources but there seems to be nothing of the sort. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • On a purely technical note, it's untrue to say that the article is based on the work of one author alone. Predating Reed is Lewis Killian's work, and some other authors are mentioned. The idea has also received secondary coverage (e.g. from Dillman and M. G. Smith). Dillman notes that "this concept of Southerners as a distinct American ethnic group has been presented for more than a decade, and it continues to gain momentum". Whether we agree with use of the concept or not, it's clearly not just the idea of one author. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: MelungeonEire has moved the article from Southerners (Ethnic Group) to White Southerners. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• I thought it'd be more fitting, since this refers to White Southerners. ( MelungeonEire ( talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)) reply
• I read the new article and while it seems improved it still lacks plausibility. My white (Australian) sister and her (South African born & Jewish) husband live in Atlanta. Shall I tell them they have a new ethnicity? They are white and live in the American South so it would seem so. Alec Station ( talk) 08:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Alec Station, note that the article isn't saying that Southerners are an ethnic group. It is saying that some academics and others consider them to be an ethnic group. That is a different thing, and is verified by the sources cited. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Cordless Larry, pardon me but academics (especially the non-scientific) claim loads of ideas and concepts. Doesn't something have to be widely accepted by a neutral group or at least accepted before it goes into wikipedia. Methinks John Shelton Reed is a bit into the American South and maybe needs some peer review. Alec Station ( talk) 10:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Yep, there needs to be coverage in secondary sources, but those are cited in the article too. Reed clearly is into the South, as you put it, but I think the journals he's published in that we cite here are peer reviewed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
        • I don't see any journals only books, except the Harvard encyclopaedia that was refuted by a real anthropologist. Seems like he's confused between culture and ethnicity. Alec Station ( talk) 10:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
          • True - sorry, Alec Station, I confused the sources with some others I read while researching this. Books by university presses are generally peer reviewed, however, and Reed and others have published on this in peer-reviewed journals, such as this and this. I've also just found some more secondary coverage in the New York Times. Whether Reed is right or wrong to consider Southern an ethnicity doesn't come into it for me - that's not for us to judge; we should just present what the sources say, including the criticism. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep per Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Very clearly, white southerners is an identity which is peppered throughout Wikipedia already search results revealing 2,283 occurrences. I would also like to point out that per Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL that black southerners is also a notable identity and this search is revealing at 2,141 occurrences so that is a worthwhile article to make as well. To deny either group is a violation of MOS:IDENTITY.
   —  Berean Hunter (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist per new findings to allow for wider input and article improvement.
   —  Berean Hunter (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Clearly a notable concept. (But is there a better criteria than " I know it when I see it" for concepts? Please comment here: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of concepts) Article name change and additional work make it a keeper. Creating an article now will dissuade (or at least allow a good response) for future attempts at poor article starts. Will attract vandals for sure, and will be hard to maintain NPOV, but those aren't reasons to delete. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete not ethnicity or encyclopaedic content KiwikiKiWi ( talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • KiwikiKiWi, can I push you to cite some policies that your delete vote is informed by? The subject appears to meet WP:GNG, as far as I see it. Whether or not Southerners constitute an ethnic group is clearly open to debate, but this article does at least now attempt to reflect that debate. As I mentioned above, the article doesn't say that Southerners are an ethnic group, but that they are considered by some authors to be an ethnic group. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Every theory by "some authors" doesn't deserve an encyclopaedic article. This claims it is by one author and it is disputed by experts. I believe the policy is related to fringe theories. KiwikiKiWi ( talk) 09:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
      • OK, fair enough (although more than one author makes the claim, and there is secondary coverage). Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:44, 6 July 2015 (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.