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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingo_Theory[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Entropy (T/C) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingo_Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Content is dubious and relies on a single source. It should be re-merged into Stereotypes_of_African_Americans or removed entirely. —Entropy (T/C) 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Maybe. I can find other references to Mandingo Theory. This book, p.59-60. And this one, p.48-49, for example. I'm not sure how much value I place on those sources, or how "nontrivial" their mention is. But more importantly, the context is different. In those sources, "Mandingo Theory" is the idea that African-American slaves were bred for physical prowess and capacity for labor, resulting in genetic selection that contributes to the stereotypical success of black athletes in modern sports. Richeson's work appears to be unique in calling out the sexual equivalent (although clearly a better-written, appropriately-cited article could cover both related uses). Are those sources enough to carry an article, though? Tentatively, I think so. But I could probably be convinced otherwise, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no shortage of critical responses to a 1991 Village Voice cover story (I believe title "The Invisible Man") which cited the "Mandingo factor" as a possible explanation for a purported under-representation of black males as news anchors, but the original article itself does not appear to be available online. Does anyone have access to it? Does it have anything substantive to add to a potential rewrite of this article? I'm not even a little excited about this topic, but I think I've got enough material to attempt a rewrite, although I'm not happy with the idea that I'd only be able to report on that 1991 piece's claims via its rebuttals. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 18. Snotbot  t • c »  19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sufficient coverage in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge - the sources are iffy as they don't discussion the subject much. This is a short and fairly weak article, it probably deserves mention somewhere but not its own article. - Haymaker (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. It is a racist attack page masquerading as a theory. Author was permanently blocked for similar troublemaking. Szzuk (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while WP is Not Censored, the simple problem with this article is that it is virtually unsourced - all the citations are from a single, primary source, which does not establish Notability; and it appears that the relationship between the source and the claims made is weak at best, i.e. the article consists largely of WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2011 (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.