Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:20, 4 August 2014

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Discrimination. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Discrimination|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Discrimination. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Discrimination

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. Those asking for a straight delete claim that the title is WP:OR and the content is WP:SYNTH. This characterisation was not effectively challenged by anyone. As such, the title cannot be kept, even as a redirect. There were some calls for merge, but no particular consensus on where to. The article can be userfied on request for anyone who thinks they can do something with it. SpinningSpark 08:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Assyrian sentiment

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

There is no such concept as "Anti-Assyrian sentiment". The text is between Original Research and Synthesis. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written in the article's talk page, I also doubt that the article's subject actually exists. However, I will wait until some editors more expert in the field give an opinion before voting. I think all of the content in the article is factually correct - the problem is with the grouping of that content into an article with this title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. The article also relies too heavily on one source. While I acknowledge there may have been discrimination against Assyrians, there aren't enough sources to show that the topic itself is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (with mild restructure of lead) to Persecution of Assyrian Christians. The Ottoman Empire managed its religious minorities as a series of millets, where the head of the church was responsible for this people's behaviour. "Assyrian" here means the members of that millet, i.e. of that orthodox denomination. "Sentiment" is an unhelpful euphemism - Muslim persecution of Christians is usually, because of actions that have allegedly offended the sentiments of Muslims. Muslims seem hypersensitive to being offended. This article is at presnet a mere time-line, which I do not like, but it is certainly no rubbish; it may wlll need more citations, vut that applies to many articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why can't all this just be included in a history of Assyrian Christians article (if it is not there already)? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, we have already invented, well others have invented the concept and we have made an article here on it, the Assyrian genocide. So that one covers much more than what is being speculated (OR and synthesis) here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if victims of genocide consider the crime inflicted on them to be an "invented concept"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator I may accept a redirect, if not a deletion is agreed upon, to History of the Assyrian people. There is almost(?) nothing (for me nothing) to merge, as all the article content is already there or in Assyrian Genocide. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article title an content is OR and synthesis I doubt "Anti-Assyrian sentiment" is something people are liable to search for. So no need for a redirect, I think. I'd just like some editors who are expert in the field to look at the subject and decide. Is "Anti-Assyrian sentiment" a term that is in use anywhere, such as in academia? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The article is synthesis. The sources - where they exist - don't actually discuss "Anti-Assyrian Sentiment". bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I second Chris Troutman in that it might be a valid topic for an article. However, it does need much better sourcing and a different focus, as the article currently synthesises several topics. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge contents with existing articles on Assyrian genocide and Assyrian nationalism. About half the content of this article is already covered in the two existing articles. The new material can be used to improve them. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2014 (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.

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 Speedy Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage

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

Nothing listed; no examples given. I doubt any conservatives have faced actual "discrimination" in the literal definition of the word as other "discrimination" articles on Wikipedia describe (see discrimination against atheists and discrimination against the homeless, for instance, that deal with legal discrimination against the respective groups). The examples listed at discrimination against conservatives are not discrimination. Seattle (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please read all before responding. The article relates to a page entitled Discrimination against conservatives which was sensibly placed in review in AfD at 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC). Gregkaye (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest listing perceived instances of discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage on the Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage page for evaluation at this AFD. Seattle (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3 No Content. The article consists of nothing but a rephrasing of the title, which is grounds for deletion under A3. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not sure why this wasn't speedied in the first place. Agree this falls under A3, no content. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 02:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced single sentence article that fails to mention even a single example of such discrimination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per above arguments; but even if it was populated from the other article, I'd say delete. I'm not clear why you created this page; it comes across as setting up a backup in case the AfD fails, without addressing the concerns of the AfD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently a pointy creation resulting from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against conservatives. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons listed above, plus the minor additions of my own: (i) the title would be unwieldy even if it were in idiomatic English; (ii) the title isn't in idiomatic English (or at least not in my lect, wherein we have opposition to this or that). -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per CSD A3: no content. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD A3 - No Content - I'm actually lost as to why the nom (or someone) didn't CSD this in the first place really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3. This is not a notable topic and it begs the question. Essentially, it duplicates the subject of another bad article, Discrimination against conservatives, making it also eligible for WP:CSD#A10.- Mr X 14:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:GRIEF. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV essay. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2014 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against conservatives

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

Original research article about alleged discrimination against social conservatives in the US. The article presents an unsourced thesis and then argues it with a loose collection of cherry picked examples of supposed discrimination against conservatives. In many cases, the subjects themselves are notable for promoting discrimination against other individual and groups. The title may be a candidate for redirection to Social conservatism in the United States. The article is mostly scandal mongering and lacks merit as a serious encyclopedia article. - Mr X 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ Could the content of the article result in increased persecution of individuals such as those in same sex relationships? If so that could be a valid justification for censorship. Gregkaye (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC) but its mainly weak because I don't like what I'd describe as conservative attitudes. The multiple issues cited are: may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline; may not include all significant viewpoints; lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies; examples and perspective in this article represent opinions from the United States and may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (all from June 2014). Notability! all seems verifiable - 28 references, significant viewpoints: if there is discrimination then the discriminated against must be allowed to speak, if they are wrong then please say why they are wrong, again please, undue weight: how? the article has a topic and is sticking to it, (but I might support a proposed rename if there is a term with a wider meaning than discrimination to enable a wider view of the topic), US centric: I'd speculate that after the US has suffered under George W. Bush etc. there may be more motivation to discriminate against conservatives in the US than other places .. but if that is where discrimination is happening and if thats where "folk" are talking about it then they have a right to speak. I also feel wary about main author and self proclaimed Dr. Bobbie Fox who I wasn't able to find on google Gregkaye (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original synthesis.--4scoreN7 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see an article about discrimination against conservatives. I see a list of examples of people/companies who faced various consequences/bad press as a result of statements on the subject of same sex marriage. There is nothing in here that's actually about conservatism (in the United States or elsewhere). There are indeed a lot of sources out there claiming discrimination against conservatives, but these (like the present article) almost always boil down to a single issue and thus are better suited for our various encyclopedia articles on those specific controversial issues. So delete as an article which exists only as the product of WP:SYNTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will say, however, that I was surprised to see that we don't have an article for political discrimination (maybe I'm just failing in my searches for an equivalent?). But I do see political repression and pages for every notable controversial issue on which people on either side could claim discrimination. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If Rhododendrites' accusations are substantiated then, if it is possible, I would love to see a redirect to a title such as "Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage". Otherwise, in light of WP:CENSOR and admittedly from the perspective of someone not from the United States, I am not sure how far we can go with this. A section could certainly be added to the article with a title like "Reports of contexts of reported incidents of discrimination". A mention of discrimination in this article may be a double edged sword but, again, I am talking from an outsiders perspective. Gregkaye (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding this and your comment above, I fail to see how WP:CENSOR is relevant here. The question isn't whether or not it's harmful, offensive, etc. The question is whether this page is appropriate as an encyclopedia article (i.e. that it is neutral and balanced in its coverage, it is well sourced to reliable sources, contains no original research or synthesis, is not already covered by other articles, and is it notable). We don't redirect to non-existent pages, so are you suggesting instead to rename the page? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have placed original research and neutrality tags on the article and I totally agree. Delete. You say that you don't see an article about discrimination against conservatives. Is there a tag for misrepresentation of title or similar. In another situation perhaps this is the kind of labelling that might be used. It is clear that article titles should be representative of their contents. I also think that, as a general rule, articles should be correctly tagged in line with the content of an AfD preferably before AfD requests are submitted. Yes, I had in effect suggested a move but that seems a moot point now. Gregkaye (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also think that Wikipedia should rethink its policy on censorship. Gregkaye (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure WP:OR. An article on a phenomenon that does not actually exist outside the tortured fringe spheres of the right-wing blogosphere. A laundry list of disparate white people problems does not a topic make. Tarc (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This sorry article starts by citing "a survey carried out by the [sic] psychologists of the [sic] Tilburg University among their colleagues". True, it only does so via a Moonie-financed newspaper; but very little effort is needed to find the actual article, "Political diversity in social and personality psychology", indeed written by two psychologists at Tilburg U, and apparently published in a respectable journal. The article says In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate. Now, one shouldn't rush to write articles on the strength of a single academic article (so far little cited, though there is this), and this study may be mistaken; but Perspectives on Psychological Science is not a "tortured fringe sphere of the right-wing blogosphere". -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's plenty of evidence that people avoid or oppose those who do or say things they find repellent. Some of these "things" are often associated with the right wing, just as others are often associated with the left. The article alludes to a single paper (PDF) that talks of discrimination against conservatives. There could be something to this. Wait until it's clear that there indeed is. Meanwhile, this is mostly a ragbag collection of efforts to spurn or oust a few semipublic figures because of particular beliefs or actions ascribed to them. -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as the author of the original article, I can see it wasn't very consistent. However, there is an ongoing trend of boycotting/vilifying public figures who oppose gay marriage in the 2010s, which clearly wasn't present in the 2000s (it's not just "avoiding or opposing" like Hoary said, it involves launching massive campaigns against these people's art, career, etc.). It shouldn't be too difficult to find reliable sources on that matter (Deseret news, Washington post, Daily caller, etc.), which analyze the trend as a whole. Therefore I suggest renaming it to Discrimination against same-sex marriage opponents in the United States, Social pressure against same-sex marriage opponents in the United States or something like that. --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As used in a substantial number of reliable source books etc. implicitly or explicitly - including NYT usage regarding "liberal bias" etc. It may well need a different title, but simple deletion is simply covering our eyes as to what is discussed in many places now. It is, moreover, not our place as Wikipedia editors to make any value judgments that "it was their fault because they opposed something which is a fundamental right" (In many cases, the subjects themselves are notable for promoting discrimination against other individual and groups.) or the like. We only can use what the sources specifically state, so that sort of argument is invalid here. [1], etc. Better to improve this article than to let such non-policy reasoning hold sway here. Collect (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I removed some "extravagant language" from the article - but a genuine skeleton of an article definitely exists. Collect (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per Rhododendrites. To be neutral, a title like Political discrimination in the United States would be best. As titled, the article is a problematic but the basic premise behind it is sound and the current material is sourced and worthwhile as a start. People/orgs/biz discriminate based solely on political leanings in the US, and there is plenty of material about the topic. While this focuses only on conservatives (which is a problem), I'm confident that the pendulum swings both ways and the overall topic of discrimination is worth writing about. Rather than see it go away, I think we are better to open the door and cover the topic in a broader sense. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am no expert on the subject but I suspect that any suggestion, in title, article or reference, that connects sexuality to political affiliation would likely be misleading. Sexuality is one thing. Politics is another. Gregkaye (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I don't follow you. You seem to be confusing "discrimination" with sexuality, or something I'm just not getting. Nothing in my comment was a reference to sexuality. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLOWITUP. The "examples" are all "discrimination against anti-homosexuals", and are only reported, not put in any context. The paper referred to in the lead does (at least, appears to) report discrimination against conservatives, but I suspect you could find equally good sources that conservatives discriminate against liberals. My google-foo is not the best, but political discrimination looks more appropriate, if commentary on the issue can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the university study was not about LGBT positions but "conservative" in general, and this is likely the single strongest source in the article on the exact topic. I suspect the NYT Public Editor columns about bias on that newspaper also would be germane, and a few other sources. There are, of course, arguments that anyone perceived to be "not us" is likely to be discriminated against, but that is not a policy based reason for deletion of this article IMO. Collect (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The university survey (not study) was about "conservative" in general; however, it wasn't even single-blind (the participants knew the researchers, as well as the other way around). Although in a legitimate journal, it has no statistical significance. Even if the article were to be kept, I would question the "reliability" of the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Parsing "survey" v. "study" seems without merit here. Meanwhile the topic makes the NYT [2], Bloomberg's speech at Harvard, [3] Okrent's dissection of the NYT in his position as Public Editor, inter alia. It is a "real topic" and likely should also include allegations of anti-liberal attitudes as well, but real topics merit Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to head off at the moment, but the survey would fail the form of WP:RS now applied to scientific articles. I'll have to consider whether the NYT articles (if they are articles) discuss discrimination against conservative ideas or discrimination against conservatives. If they do discuss the topic of the article, we could add them to the lead, and remove all the examples, and start editing again. In that case, I would change my !vote to Keep (but remove examples which do not say specifically that they are "discrimination against conservatives", and are commented on. That would be all the examples now here. I do not think the published survey is adequate to indicate notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it a scientific articla? In a news article that does not erroneously confuse sexual issues with political issues I see no problem. It might be relevant to state the category of source that a citation came from: academic source, university-level textbook, book published by respected publishing house, magazine, journal, mainstream newspaper etc. if this categorisation was applied consistently to citations. Gregkaye (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Collect, I looked at both of the links you provide. Both briefly address allegations of a liberal bias (one in TV content, the other in the NYT). "Discrimination" is a slippery term, and in one of its meanings I unashamedly discriminate among choices during most of my waking hours (and ought to be institutionalized if I didn't); in this context, though, we're surely talking about inequitable and unjustifiable discrimination against people. I don't see any mention in either of those links of a claim that those who hold or espouse views that are conservative (however defined) are discriminated against (have difficulty getting served, have difficulty getting, keeping or advancing in their jobs, are "profiled" for immigration or police checks, etc). I'm willing to believe that sane people have seriously alleged that such discrimination exists; you are of course free to add it to the article under discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No doubt, there is such thing as discrimination against conservatives. Unfortunately, discrimination research looks like | this. It accounts for methodology and data sets and statistical measures. I would love to see some competent studies of discrimination against conservatives. Unfortunately, there's none to be found here. This is WP:COATRACK.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious coatracky synthesis; there's no there there in these disparate incidents. People choosing how to spend their money isn't discrimination - it's the free market, baby. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article title has no basis in political reality. This is is not discrimination. Look at that article. See anything about political affiliation there? Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion etc is prohibited by the US Constitution, while treating people differently because of their politics is no more than refusing to cooperate, and any laws forcing cooperation with opposing political forces would be the worst sort of impingement on political freedom. Anarchangel (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No policy issue -- just a claim that refusing to work with people because of their political beliefs is fully proper - thus is not "discrimination." What an interesting viewpoint, but not one which has any policy basis at all. Collect (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - The Constitution comes first. Then, maybe, we write about it. That is to say, it must be notable. In a case of discrimination, if it is not covered by the Constitution, it does not exist. If it does not exist, it is not notable, and we do not write about it. Not my fault if there is no WP rule that specifically states there should not be articles about a subject which is defined so badly as to be nonexistent. I suspect there are, though. I suspect, also, that you have stumbled upon a new Argument to Avoid in deletion discussions; sort of the opposite of the rule against throwing acronyms at the problem instead of using logical arguments. I used a logical argument and no acronyms. So? Anarchangel (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! If the Constitution does not cover it, it does not exist is an amazing claim. Cheers -- but if that is the basis for "deletion" then anyone closing it should give that argument the precise weight it deserves. Collect (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - I suspect that there may be United States conservatives that neither support or oppose same sex marriage. Some may even support it and some may themselves be very gay. I also suspect that there may be people from other political views that have strong opposition to same sex marriage. I would be dubious about any title that associated sexuality based prejudice and a political view if there were more broadly defined titles that could be sensibly used. An association might be done on a more individual basis but within the context of an article Gregkaye (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy is WP:TITLE. Article titles should be what the article is actually about. This article is not about discrimination; it's a COATRACK of cherry-picked examples of reactions to discriminatory statements and actions of people who oppose same sex marriage. To loosely collect all of these reactions under the banner of 'discrimination' is blatant SYNTHESIS, it's misleading, and it violates WP:NPOV.- MrX 01:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you dislike a title - the course is to rename the article. The fact is that one survey shows a concrete issue is what one must contend with - and that the same concerns were expressed by the Public Editor of the New York Times. Calling Okrent a "blatant" anything is likely incorrect. And his point said nothing whatsoever about "same sex marriage" and the survey was not about "same sex marriage." The cavils about the cases shown may indicate that broader cases should be added, but the assertion that no issue exists is simply blindness to real problems which have existed in many places over many years. I suggest that a person in the pre-war South who opposed slavery would have been boycotted by his neighbors - and this is the same issue -- the issue of "trial by vote" of any political position. Twain wrote about people viewed as "pro-Chinese" in nineteenth century San Francisco being driven out of town (an ongoing issue which arose again in the willful internment of Japanese-Americans in WW II and the interesting profitable seizure of their lands and businesses). Santayana's admonition about ignoring the past is relevant here. Should the article be broader? Likely yes. Should it be deleted? Likely no. In fact, the perils of any "blacklist" would be a fit here. Collect (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a hot mess of original research and synthesis wrapped into a article fork of an urban legend. If this article about this fringe belief is kept, it must be re-named into something more neutral. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not be opposed to Political discrimination in the United States, but this article has way too many issues, and I'm not convinced that all of them are solvable through normal editing. A more neutral presentation that included actual discussion of the topic, instead of cherry-picked examples, would be a viable topic. The way it's currently written seems to be some kind of "discrimination against bigots" soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV coatrack. Political discrimination in the United States might be an encyclopedic topic. This article ain't it, nor even within the same zip code of being it... Carrite (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A load of recentvist hooey. Of no value in anything close to this form. 70.192.87.133 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SYNTHESIS. No basis for renaming or redirecting. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2014 (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.

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. without prejudice to future creation of a new article on Legal status of Chinese people in America j⚛e decker ^talk 03:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal history of Chinese Americans

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

This article has been troubled with various issues from its creation date, some of which has been mentioned on the article talk page. The creator and affiliated people of said user have abandoned resolving the issues. There's no clear scope and most of its content is unsuitable if one can call it content. The article history has been riddled with copyright violations from its creation and from its recreation. The remnants should be treated carefully in that regards too, close paraphrasing and such. In conclusion, it would be best to delete this article rather than try to go the lengthy and cumbersome way to fix this (there was two plus years for that). If someone decides to recreate this article, I doubt any current content would be salvaged anyway than to start afresh. Besides, there's no point in saving an article history filled with copyright violations. Cold Season (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of TNT required. The Opium War and subsequent treaties are way off-topic and the other sections seem to be a bizarre tangle of legislation and news items with no cohesive structure. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless there is a good merge target) -- The article and the name do nmot wholly match, but that is curable, perhaps Legal status of Chinese people in America. The article is essntially a time-line of historical laws and legal decisions. That is worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author pledged to recreate it properly, only too abandon it in this state... The article is a remnant of something comprising a chronological overview, with the most-blatant issues cleansed, thus the listing in its stead (it gives an idea at how much needed to be removed). People have wasted too much time to salvage it, but feel free to do your attempt for this keep or merge (and prove me wrong, I doubt it; it's more likely that an attempt would focus on starting over). The topic is worth having, this content is not. --Cold Season (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2014 (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.

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) --Jakob (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lookism

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines for neologisms, should be deleted on that demerit, alone. In addition, the article presents the following issues: article is written in a feminocentric tone; some sources may show bias; article may draw its own conclusions. Rat Meat (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Several thousand GBook hits, and I expect I would find the same thing in the scholarly literature. The article may be junk but it's a notable topic. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Source examples: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Many more sources exist. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per NorthAmerica. 1292simon (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2014 (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.

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 REDIRECT to Human rights in China#Ethnic minorities. Acxle has pretty much made this a fait accompli by adding the material into the article. No comment on whether or not this can eventually be cut out into a stand-alone article. Spinning Spark 20:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights of ethnic minorities in China

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

Article duplicates the topic of Human rights in China and Ethnic issues in China. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ethnic issues in China categorised as Category:Racism by country, Category:People's Republic of China culture. Human rights in China has small section about ethnic minorities in China. There are 55 ethnic groups in China. Acxle (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. The topic is perfectly covered within the scope of those articles. Also, why does it matter or should we care about how many ethnic groups there are in China? M. Caecilius (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If delete this article, there must be section "Human rights of ethnic minorities" in Human rights in China. Acxle (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page can be merged and redirected to either of those two pages (Ethnic issues in China, Human rights in China); much of what is covered in the Human rights of ethnic minorities in China article can be covered in those two pages. The topic is a legitimate and notable topic, however the amount of information presently available would probably suffice as an article section, rather than a standalone page. If the content becomes expanded in the future so that it becomes too large, it can be split off into an independent page again. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge as per Benlisquare comments. This shouldn't really have been posted as an Afd as duplication is not a reason to delete. See Wikipedia:Merge for how to deal with duplicated topics. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Acxle (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article violates WP:LINKFARM, WP:SOAP and WP:RS for alot of its content, such as Dr. Paul George and Habib Siddiqui's articles (they have absolutely no credentials in the area). Wikipedia is not a platform to promote a certain cause or agenda. The article is essentially a one sided, random criticism of China thrown together without any context. If the article gets merged, most of the content on the merged article is going to get deleted anyway since it already violates WP:SOAP and WP:RS.Rajmaan (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Rajmaan, that WP:LINKFARM and WP:SOAP are not valid reasons for deletion and while WP:RS is a valid reason, it is not shown that there are no possible reliable sources, only that many of the current sources are not reliable. Delete in the context of a Afd does not mean delete the content rewrite a better article later. An Afd deletion means there will be no article with that title at all; not now and not in the future either. Before deleting, we should look to see if an article can be improved. If it can, then that is the course of action, even if every line or text is replaced and even if it takes years to do. It may be suitable to incubate an article while it is improved. Alternatively, write a quick stub and place that over the existing article thus removing the content you find objectionable until a longer article develops. A third option is to blank and redirect. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Substantially covered in numerous sources such as Equality, autonomy, and development: The pattern of protection of the human rights of ethnic minorities in China Xinhua Chubanshe 1998 as well as other book sources. Also numerous articles on this subject. Sufficiently distinct from human rights issues although there is some overlap. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Substantially covered in numerous sources has nothing to do with the current article. The article, as it stands, is a badly written non-POV compilation of attacks on China, promoting a certain POV, a linkfarm, and sourced with articles written by people who have zero credentials in the area. If you feel you have reliable sources, then rewrite the article yourself after the current one is deleted. The source you just named is not currently being used in the article, it is a red herring to say the topic of the article is notable and well covered in sources not even used in the article, while the current article is written horribly.Rajmaan (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge if there's content worth keeping where the topic is already covered, as stated above. As it stands, the article is a fork and a soapbox. --Cold Season (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the title. There should be an article on this topic. Topic ban for User:Acxle for linking news stories that abuse the facts to summary that abuses the sources further. [9] and [10] The facts scream out at this tortuous treatment. China allows two children per family in rural areas. All rural areas. To everyone. http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4f13d6f42.pdf The article claims not just the reverse, but that a specific group, Han, are given two in a specific area, Xinjiang, while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one. An article on Islamic terrorism is used to justify this rich and complex falsehood. Either way you slice it, whether as bad faith or some sort of excellent ineptitude, this is harmful to the encyclopedia. Same for the sentence at the end of the article: An article which unwisely uses its mind-reading powers to discern a "hint" in a speech, is turned by the article summary into a fact. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy as "keeping" a title, the policy is, that if the topic is notable but the article written about it violates policy, we delete the existing article and someone can create a new, neutral, non-POV article on the topic.Rajmaan (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchangel: "while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one" Where are you getting this information from? It's quite contradictory to well sourced information on other articles. Non-Han ethnics are not limited by the one-child policy, according to Affirmative action in China and related pages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what Anarchangel said, he explaining that what Acxle wrote is wrong.Rajmaan (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Redirect per Benlisquare and Rincewind42's comments. As for "keeping" the title, if it becomes a redirect it is automatically "kept". Philg88 ^♦talk 07:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Rajmaan created Chinese propaganda articles: Migration to Xinjiang, User:Rajmaan/Migration to Xiniiang. What is purpose of these articles? Are these aricles necessary? There are many articles about human rights in Tibet but very few articles created for other ethnic minorities.

Acxle (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make double votes, as this makes it difficult to gauge the number of editors in support of each side and could be perceived as cheating the system. As for Migration to Xinjiang, there is no similar overlap with existing pages, and I'm not sure why you called it a "Chinese propaganda page", given that you are more than free (and I would encourage you) to add the Uyghur viewpoint in an NPOV manner into that article. I do think that more coverage on human rights of ethnic minorities in China other than the Tibetans is necessary, but we must consider the availability of reliable sources (which, by the way, a very large number of yours I don't consider to be). If there are a very large number of reliable sources covering what is clearly a very salient issue in popular discourse, then make it a separate page dealing specifically with the region/ethnicity, like "human rights of Uyghurs". If not, then integrate it into existing pages like human rights in China and Uyghur people. What I don't think is necessary is a separate page specifically on the human rights of ethnic minorities in China in general, especially since as it stands now that page more or less deals exclusively with the Uyghurs. Hope this clarifies my position. M. Caecilius (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reject User:Acxle's ad hominem attack (see WP:NPA). In fact, what I wrote on the article Migration to Xinjiang is the exact opposite of Chinese historiography. In China, the Qing attack on the Zunghars is viewed as a heroic endeavor by the Qianlong Emperor while the Zunghar Khan Amursana is villified as a rebel. Mongols have called out China on this issue, China downplays the Qing genocide of the Zunghars while I created an entire Zunghar genocide article, and if I was a historian in China, I could potentially be permanently banned from academia for that. And in fact only one source used in the article is from China. Is Acxle suggesting that western historians who work at western universities like Professor James A. Millward, Peter C. Perdue, Christian Tyler, and Ildikó Bellér-Hann are Chinese propagandists?Rajmaan (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acxle's characterization of Rajmaan's article Migration to Xinjiang as Chinese propaganda is utter nonsense. In that article Rajmaan covers extensively the important and often neglected Zunghar genocide, probably not one of the most glorious moments in Chinese history. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Ethnic issues in China. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK that contains little useful information that hasn't been covered in other articles. -Zanhe (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Benlisquare comments, possibly merge into both articles. Looking over the laundry of arguments on all sides, this article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:LINKFARM but the subject matter is clearly notable and something worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. I personally don't see a legitimate deletion reason stated at all but there are some very good arguments for a merge. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:03, 24 May 2014 (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.

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. I'm closing this early per the snowball clause; I don't see any likelihood of an outcome other than keep based on the discussion so far. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation academies

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NEO Verdad (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a shockingly misguided nomination. For more insight into the nominator's mindset, who seems to think that this term was invented by Wikipedia (!?), see this comment on the article's talk page. Then see the extensive discussion and coverage of this topic by name without scare quotes in reliable sources dating back forty years and more: [11], [12], [13], [14], and on and on and on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article does not fall under WP:DICDEF. This article doesn't provide a simple dictionary definition; it quite obviously discusses the subject's history extensively and provides a wealth of reliable sources on the details of the topic. Furthermore, the term is most certainly not a neologism as per the sources linked by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah above. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one thing, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NEO" is a sentence fragment (or two), not a well-supported argument for deletion; for another, this article is no more a dictionary definition than is the article on, say, "Jim Crow laws". 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Segregation academies were a well-documented response to desegregation. Hundreds of other articles link to the article. The article is important and should remain in Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. In its current form, the article violates WP:NEO. I apologize for the previous sentence fragment. I find the continued use of scare_quotes and terminology like, "so-called" and "dubbed" indicative that the term is a neologism. Regardless of the date it was first used... (And I stand corrected. My fears are assuaged . The term did not originate on Wikipedia. Thank you, alf laylah wa laylah)... sources using the term uniformly include scare quotes, etc. I disagree with alf laylah wa laylah's assertion that the sources do not. And I encourage participants in this discussion to view the cited sources. I don't mind the article not being deleted. But, It seems to me it needs serious overhaul. For example, the Allen v Wright case, which forms a large portion of the article, makes no mention of the term. And so on, and so forth.Verdad (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 00:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Important topic, clear notability. (If the decision is to Keep, I would recommend renaming the article in the singular, as per WP:TITLE, to Segregation academy.) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure why it was nominated. Obvious keep. Bali88 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2014 (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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Guam

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

This article is essentially original synthesis. The lead acknowledges, in fact, that racism is not particularly prevalent, and then the article appeals to a couple of incidents in which accusations of racism were made. There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is really a thing. St Anselm (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the incidents are by any means notable, they might be included in the article Guam itself. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK. No need to create a separate home for this content. aprock (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (edit conflict) A YouTube video and an accusation about racism. Not exactly what I'd call WP:NOTABLE. Merge would be an option per Fauzan above, but that's only if the stuff could be verified as being worth a mention, which it isn't from what I'm seeing. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve An attempt to find better sources should happen instead. A quick search finds note of Racism in Guam, mostly towards the chuukese people. See this chapter in "Proving Chamorro": Indigenous Narratives of Race, Identity, and Decolonization on Guam and this chapter in Destiny's Landfall: A History of Guam. The article doesn't need deletion, it needs improving Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to view the first reference; the second reference only mentions an American governor 100 years ago who is described as being racist. St Anselm (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube is not much of a source for anything at all -- and the claim about an identifiable living person (Asst. A-G of Guam is a living person, and a specific living person) is contrary to the requirements of WP:BLP. I am quite uncertain the "blog.heritage.com" meets WP:RS for any contentious claims at all. Is Guam blameless? Probably not, but this article is not ready for prime time on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Delete - Racism is an important topic and exists everywhere, so racism in Guam is definitely something that would work on wikipedia. As is, the article isn't going to work. I posted the article on wikiproject: discrimination to see if anyone is interested in taking on the task as well as the talk page of Culture of Guam. I think it may work as a merge onto Culture of Guam. If no one improves the article, I will vote to delete, but I'm hoping that someone can improve the article to meet wikipedia standards. Bali88 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK, if/when reliable sources are found then I see no problem with this being remade or redirected at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2014 (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.

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. The previous AfD was withdrawn when the nominator learned that this was an educational assignment. That was courteous, allowing time for improvement, although mainspace articles should meet mainspace standards whatever their origin. However, a year on, there have been no major improvements, and in fact I notice that none of the article's original authors has edited since December 2012, that presumably being when their class project ended. Consensus now is clear that this does not meet Wikipedia's standards and that, though an article on this subject might be possible, it would be better started from a clean sheet. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in the family

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

This article in an essay. This article is written as such due to a class assignment that is far over and is wholly unencyclopedic. The article is written in a manner that attempts to persuade, and short of a complete rewrite, this article has no content that is salvageable. In addition, there is a whole section (Sexism_in_the_family#Media_for_children) that has nothing to do with the family, but instead an entirely different subject. A merger with Sexism may be considered, but this page has so much bias in it that a complete rewrite of any facts would be needed for a merge with that article. A deletion of this page is the best decision. 155blue (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, presentation seems well sourced and most educational and encyclopedic for topic choice. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Presentation is sourced an is completely in violation of WP:NOR. It is an essay which job is to persuade, not to inform. This violates one of the pillars of wikipedia in that it is completely biased.155blue (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Survived the first AfD because it was involved in an educational assignment, but Oklahoma State University should be ashamed of itself for allowing its students to leave the article in such a state. Not only is it an essay, it is a horrible OR essay. It fails to adequately define the topic. The sources listed are not used to aggregate the consensus view of an established topic, but rather are cobbled together to form a vague and original thesis. I am always hesitant about voting "delete" for a topic that hypothetically could be worthwhile, but in this case it is ill-defined. Any attempt to fix it would be more work than simply deleting this mess, but more importantly would be an artificial attempt to recitate a fatally flawed article because it happened to have a good title. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I take the view that any article with more than six 'cleanup' templates automatically qualifies for speedy deletion; not including {{notability}} which is missing, there are currently seven.--Laun chba ller 17:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a real topic, and a real issue, with a lot of real research done on it. An encyclopaedic treatment could be good, but this isn't it. Article starts with a POV perspective (granted, one that I share) then attempts to convince the reader that it's bad and that something must be done. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Agree with the above assessment that a new title would be needed at a minimum, as well as a hefty dose of WP:TNT to start the thing over. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 8 March 2014 (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.

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black privilege

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

Unreferenced article on a concept that appears to have been invented by Metapedia. Fishal (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great article Don't delete. Studying privilege is a part of critical theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.102.97 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think the notability is borderline but the GBook search shows genuine hits on the notion. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per Iselilj. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reference in Google Books. There is article on White Privilege, but no mention of this term in that article. - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is not true. The first three GBook hits I get ([15][16][17]) are good, and the third goes on to define the notion. I'm not utterly convinced that this is enough to write an article around, or that the present article addresses the concept as these books do, but it is utterly inaccurate to say that books don't mention this. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to RS and apparent failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there does seem to be a small amount of mainstream coverage, this is primarily a WP:FRINGE theory from Stormfront and its ilk. The only thing we can discuss is how mainstream journalists and researchers state that it's a fringe theory. I don't really see the point, unless people want to use this article to denounce it (a clear case of violating NPOV). The definitions in the books provided by Mangoe seem idiosyncratic and divergent; certainly, they have nothing to do with the White Nationalist rhetoric here. The article could be repurposed for the book definitions and ignore the fringe White Nationalist rhetoric, but I'm not convinced that this is really a thing yet. Google scholar returns some results, but it's still not clear what they're discussing or how accepted any of their definitions are. The majority of them seem to be discussing white privilege. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax/vandalism. The article is copied verbatim from the white privilege article (only changing white to black) and is obviously a parody to make a point. Iselilja (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced essay and neologism, a fork of the white article. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2014 (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.

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Romania

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

Whole article is based on a single risible report, which states that Roma are discriminated at employment because they are not enough qualified, they are discriminated regarding the housing because they don't have money to buy authorizations, they are discriminated at education because of the drop-out rate etc. Either better sources are found, or this article should go, in my opinion. Florin zeitblom (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Racism in Romania[reply]

Keep and close per "Either better sources are found, or this article should go, in my opinion." Any article that can be improved is not a good AfD candidate, per WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there's overlap with Roma in Romania, there's no shortage of easily-found material on the topic, about anti-semitism and other forms of racism as well as anti-Roma feeling.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Proposer should have attempted to find sources, per WP:BEFORE. Topic is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited to add a bit on anti-semitism and restructured so it's not purely about treatment of Roma. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you think that the article could be better, you can help us by improving it. bogdan (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The issue at hand is if the subject is notable. The subject of this article is racism. So, yes, it is notable, and Colapeninsula has found some sources. There is also plenty of precedent for covering the subject of racism by nation. Searching for "racism in" brings up plenty of examples of that – the first page of results brings up articles where "Racism in X" is the title or a redirect for the US, Japan, Hungary, Russia, Israel, China, the UK, Australia, Turkey, France, Ukraine, Argentina, Sweden, and India (Also, Europe, Asia, North America, the Palestinian territories, sports, and football (soccer)), so there isn't any reason to think Romania is being "singled out" for this sort of thing. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily sufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (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.

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 no consensus.

There is a very incivil comment on the keep side suggesting that some on the delete side "might be harboring racist notions themselves". Comments like that damage the collegiality and good will that is required for Wikipedia to function.

The main argument on the delete side is that the article is a content fork of Anti-Arabism. This has been countered with arguments that not all from the Middle East are Arabs (conversely, not all Arabs are from the Middle East), so it is not entirely obvious that the two articles are covering the same thing even if there might be considerable overlap. Even so, an argument can be made that the sources that mention hatred towards those from the Middle East are really referring to hatred towards Arabs. I took a look at some of the cited sources, [25] and [26], that mention "Middle East" rather than "Arab", and I couldn't truly make my mind up on who is "right" here.

Some of the arguments on the delete side seem superficial (there are many assertions of WP:CONTENTFORK, but rather less evidence, also "I've heard of anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim, but no anti-Middle Eastern." isn't really an argument either.) I also note that the nominator reconsidered his position during the debate.

The issue here remains unresolved, but at the time I cannot really see a firm consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Middle Eastern sentiment

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

This article is copy/pasted from sections of Anti-Arabism. I do not see any discussion of a split, or any reason why one would be warranted here. However, it does not seem to be unambiguous enough to merit an A10 so I am bringing it here for discussion. VQuakr (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 09:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 09:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As you may see all parts of the article are sourced[27]. You should try to fix the links with making them a direct reference instead trying to delete the page. Anti-Arabism and Anti Middle Easterner sentiment are different. Anti-Arabism is more focused on arabs only but anti middle east is about all the middle eastern people.[28] I think instead of deleting these source you would better to fix them by making them direct sources, and why to delete to whole article? any reason?KhabarNegar (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand where you are coming from here - the Anti-Arabism article, when referring to bias occurring outside of the Middle East (especially the USA and Australia - obviously we need to be talking about an area outside of the Middle East for "Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment" to have meaning), does not differentiate between Anti-Arabism, religious discrimination againsts Muslims and Sikhs, and discrimination against people from (or who cosmetically appear to be from) the Middle East such as Iranians and Westerners of Middle Eastern descent. The question is whether it makes sense to have two parallel articles, or whether the scope of Anti-Arabism should be formally expanded (possibly incorporating a title change) to include the scope it already contains. My !vote is still that a single article is merited; if it can be demonstrated that the parallel approach can be done without being a substantial copy then I will consider withdrawing my nomination. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sad part is that there had been an article on "Middle Eastern" Americans, and it had a small and well written section on the subject. The article was deleted several times. If that article still existed, this article might not ever need to have been created in the first place. The Scythian 20:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr if you respectfully read this article again you will see that there is not a single claim which is related with anti ARAB ISM or anti Islam, Yes in some parts the attacker have used that terms but the reason of actions are all the middle easterner appearances not anything else at all. so this article in its place have no problem being here and not become removed from Wikipedia, because actually there is no reason. Thats It.

Anti-communism, Russophobia, Anti-Slavic sentiment, Anti-Serb sentiment Or we also have Anti-Mexican sentiment & Hispanophobia Or We also have Anti-Christian sentiment, Francophobia, Anti-Western sentiment, Anti-Americanism, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-German sentiment & Anti-Europeanism... So Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, about the concern about having two parallel articles, we may say they are not two parallel articles, they are "completely" different. you may see that right now. in the current article. Please check the sources right now all the events are directly anti middle eastern things and nothing else, Nothing else at all... please check all the events in current article we are talking about and also check their sources. thank you,:) KhabarNegar (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research-ish fork of Anti-Arabism. The article is sourced to [29]; that article does not mention the term "Anti Middle Easterner sentiment". I can't find instances of such a term being used anywhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was written wrong, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL KhabarNegar (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "Anti Middle Eastern sentiment" does have a few hits. Ping me if this article is rewritten using reliable sources, and I'll consider changing my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no convincing evidence that this article provides anything not already in Anti-Arabism - even though there are reliable sources these terms, they essentially seem to be describing anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiment, not a distinct phenomenon.

You are probably not aware of this simple fact, but not everyone who is "Middle Eastern" is an "Arab" nor a "Muslim." Hence the term "Middle Eastern." The Scythian 14:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of ignorance and bigotry won't get you far - please keep it civil. The point being made is that none of the reliable sources are discussing a form of bigotry that is distinct from anti-arab or anti-muslim bigotry. Until a large number of reliable sources distinguish this as a truly unique phenomenon, then it's not worthy of its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on here for years...Not saying your a racist at all. Just pointing out that the article on racism against Arabs, wouldn't relate to such against Iranians, Israelis, Armenians, Turks, etc. We used to have an article on "Middle Eastern" Americans. The article had a good section on discrimination. The entire article on Middle Eastern Americans, a term recognized by the U.S government, was deleted by editors making the exact same arguments as some here. The article on Anti-Iranian sentiment likewise was called for deletion multiple times in the same fashion. This is getting ridiculous...The truth is, racism against Arabs, Muslims, Middle Easterners and South Asians is generally, though not exclusively, all along the same lines. Arab, Muslim and "Middle Easterner" are terms that get thrown around almost interchangeably. Hence, different articles. Society has not chosen an acceptable term for it yet, but as such, a new "group" has indeed become racialised. Either that, or we create an article with one really long name. That doesn't change the fact that there are SOME editors who would just as see not any article of any name be created, in relation to the subject at hand. The Scythian 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FORK as mentioned above.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've heard of anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim, but no anti-Middle Eastern.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd is useless, till no reliable reason provided Why this article should be removed?, See: WP:Poll KhabarNegar (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Some of the "editors" here simply do not believe/wish the subject to exist. I want the article "fixed," and intend to help do so. It's about time someone created(or recreated?)an article on this subject. It had already been touched upon in the old article on Middle Eastern Americans...But alas, that to was deleted. Twice...By people who felt that as a group, they really didn't exist. The Scythian 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Racism against people of Middle Eastern origin in the United States and Europe is a very real phenomenon and undeniable fact. I would imagine that some of those wanting this article deleted, might be harboring racist notions themselves. The Scythian 14:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NPA and WP:AGF. No one in these AfD has suggested that this subject does not exist, and no one has expressed an interest in censorship. VQuakr (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor already has. People calling for the article to be deleted and not modified = denial that the subject exists. Anyone denying the subject exists, might have a questionable intention. The article badly needs work from the get go, but that is irrelevant here. Just like the article on Talk:Anti-Iranian_sentiment, there is no shortage of relentless editors who do not believe such a subject exists, and intend to have the article deleted to enforce their own world view. That is a fact, and something that an open air encyclopedia like Wikipedia must strongly guard against. The Scythian 20:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (replacing my implicit delete !vote as nominator) and cleanup the split from Anti-Arabism. The article has been expanded significantly from the copy/paste job that existed when I nominated it. The fact is that most of the incidents listed at Anti-Arabism occurring outside of the Middle East probably are examples of Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment (actions which frequently, but only by happenstance are committed against Arabs) as opposed to another Middle Eastern ethnic group. Anti-Arabism probably is a term better reserved for racist actions targeted specifically against Arabs, which I would expect would me more common in places (particularly in the Middle East) where Arabs are part of a mixed Middle Eastern population (examples in the Anti-Arabism article include Iran, Israel, and Niger). In my opinion - for sections in Anti-Arabism about racism in areas such as North America, Great Britain, and Australia - the examples given (whether they happen to be about actions against Arabs or not) belong in Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment, to the point that those sections in Anti-Arabism should be trimmed to a short paragraph with a main tag linking to the appropriate section in Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment.

A couple of final notes - WP:PERF was brought up earlier in the context of "don't worry about repeating information." This is a misapplication of the linked information page. Articles should not contain duplicated information for readability and navigation reasons, not to keep server load low. And, really, stop the accusations of racism. VQuakr (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is original research. Some of it could be salvaged and it would fit better into other articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks for the help if you sincerely tell me what part of the article "Exactly" is original research? By the way I really loved your edit summary :) [30], "not quite", that was nice. anyway thanks for voting & please let me know what part is original research, and also please try once again may be you will find a little tiny parts of the article which have sources. Thanks again for voting and thanks in advance for letting us know what part is original research to your point of view. Regards, KhabarNegar (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tidied up the page a bit and removed parts that were not relevant. I have no particular opinion on whether or not to delete this. Funny ^Pika! 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This doesn't actually exist, the term is "anti-Arabism", the topic of which is already covered at its respective article. This is an unnecessary and unwelcome fork of that, not a standalone, legitimate subject. It seems we go through these sorts of discussions every few months or so, the most recent IIRC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israelophobia, with some of the same users who insist on editing disruptively. It may be time to discuss topic bans elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom, since it's been cleaned up somewhat (although it still needs work: more RS and less OR). Miniapolis 02:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This should go back to anti-Arabism because this serves as an unnecessary content fork; it does not seem to be acceptable even under WP:RELART at this point. Yes, the source page needs an overhaul, but their is no need to have two pages dedicated to the same thing under slightly different names. Its like petrol and gasoline, they should not have separate articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2013 (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.

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. If folks want to discuss a possible merge they can do that on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 01:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paper bag party

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

No proper source, article blabbering on about irrelevant source. No paper bag party ever took place. Ysangkok (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the existence of a clear source stating the existence of paper bag parties, that last sentence is clearly and simply wrong. Whether the source(s) are appropriate or the topic is notable is a different story; could the relevant writers for this article please explain why paper bag parties are a notable part of the history of African-Americans requiring its own article as opposed to being placed in another article?

Additional issues with this article, even beyond the issue of notability, is the actual content itself; as stated in the section, the Free African Americans section needs to be rewritten in a manner more suited for encyclopaedic content on paper bag parties as opposed to an opinion essay on the history of racism against African-Americans. And furthermore, the lead-in needs to be rewritten for much the same reason, since there is no logical reason why the concept of paper bag parties should directly lead into " larger issues of class and caste within the African-American population"; nor, for that matter, does any source suggest such a connection. These "larger issues" seem irrelevant for the immediate topic, and should be so removed from the page on paper bag parties and placed in a more appropriate article (African-American history seems an obvious destination for this information). Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Discrimination based on skin color. I found eight Google Scholar results pertaining to the subject, so the idea certainly exists. However, it is just a metaphor; it's too small a subject to warrant its own article. Therefore, I'd recommend that the article in question be merged with Discrimination based on skin color, an article which already has a section on the subject that could be expanded. Marechal Ney (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of scholarly and popular sources attest to the existence of such parties. With some improvement this could be the main article for the "Brown paper bag test" section of Discrimination based on skin color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Paper Bag Principle is a substantial source which amply justifies our having an article on the topic. Warden (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2013 (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.

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. L Faraone 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse_racism

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

WP:NOTRS Gerntrash (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2013 (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/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic and its very label has received growing academic attention, such as here: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/6/3/215.short . So, even if some current sources are weak, the article can be upgraded. The scope goes beyond US and South Africa, e.g. on French wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racisme_antiblanc .Whether reverse racism is reality or perception is, of course, a subject of further debate. But the topic is there to stay, and it belongs on wikipedia.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Racism or Reverse discrimination. Ignatz mice•talk 19:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination. Title of article refers to discrimination rather than racism as such. The article is well researched and its content should be retained if not already in revese discrimination. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination Rrreese (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination as a fork. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of academic worth,and is a highly contentious issue which has been discussed widely by both the press and in academia. It is of my opinion, however, that the majority of the article needs to be re-written and expanded. Particularly as the existence of "reverse-racism" is implied throughout the article, even though it is hotly debated whether 'reverse-racism' truly exists.Veryirregularuser (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable widely discussed topic, most recognizable under this particular name. Agree the article needs upgrading. groupuscule (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . There is room for both to develop. this is asubset of the general topic. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:16, 14 May 2013 (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.

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. Discussions for merging content can happen at the talk page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Penalty

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

Subject is a non notable Neologism which was created by an account with no other edits other than to promote Reza Hasmath's 2012 book, and his Neologism. . Hu12 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure how new a phrase has to be to still be considered a neologism, but I was able to find 13 articles on HighBeam that use the term (The Economist, Daily Mail, The Independent, Jerusalem Post) as well as six books on Questia and about 40 newspaper articles on NewsBank, almost all UK newspapers. The oldest reference I found was from 1994. - Mr X 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or complete rewrite: term appears to be notable, but this is a bare rewrite of A Dictionary of Human Resource Management (2 rev ed.), see partial text here. Hairhorn (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discrimination, the main article on the general concept. BTW is it always minorities that suffer an ethnic penalty? The article seems to be saying so. BigJim707 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The term has been around for 20+ years and is widely used in commonwealth countries (I am a PhD candidate looking at this topic). Merging it to discrimination does not do justice to the term as it is more about non-discriminatory reasons, like not having the same social networks as non-minorities, and so forth. To answer BigJim's question, the ethnic penalty generally refers to visible ethnic minorities. The article has been edited to ensure hairhorn's concerns are addressed. Oxfsoc (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps merge. The current version seems adequately referenced, the phrase seems established as a term of art, and the current version has been rescued from copyright issues. I'm not certain there's a whole lot more to be said about this phrase, in which case it seems related enough to discrimination to be successfully merged without undue weight, but that's outside of AfD's bailiwick. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of hits in third party sources for the term and the article has some of said sources properly cited. audiodude (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Discrimination. This is merely a neologism for the encyclopedic concepts of Employment Discrimination and Wage Discrimination based upon race. As such, it is a fork and should be merged away. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discrimination as per previous suggestions. - Mr X 19:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I agree with users Oxfsoc and Audiodude. Notability undoubted.--Soroboro (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Soroboro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- For the reasons above.--Goldenaster (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.

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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster sexism

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

The term was coined and defined a couple of months ago in an article by Allissa Quart on New York Magazine's website. It's basically something she just made up one day rather than a notable concept. It hasn't been picked up by scholars or analyzed independently by anyone. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually ran into this and was tempted to PROD it as just another neologism, but if you search for the term you'll see it has relatively widespread coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reliable sources? Can you link to some of your results? What I found were occasional mentions, e.g. this senior thesis, along with the article it came from. If I've missed enough places where actual reliable sources discuss the concept I'd be happy to withdraw.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with Hipster racism, there are enough sources to justify an article in my view, even if they're not scholarly ones. Robofish (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just following the regular google search link I saw articles from Huffington Post, Slate, as well as another on on the Hindu Business Line. CarolMooreDC 04:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the HuffPo piece is just a reprint of the original NY Mag piece already cited in the article, the Slate piece merely provides a link to the article, and the Hindu Business Line piece uses the term but does not discuss it. Obviously the term is used a lot, but it's not discussed anywhere I can find outside of Quart's original article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage among multiple sorts of references. — Cirt (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrate that this topic meets WP:GNG. A search for "ironic sexism" brings up more sources as well. Christianity Today even picked up on this. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 06:31, 15 January 2013 (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.

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) Mediran (t • c) 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster racism

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

This term was coined by Carmen Van Kerckhove in 2006. Since then it seems not to have been picked up at all by the scholarly community. The sources cited in the article, other than the ones by Van Kerckhove, don't use the term, let alone discuss it. Vivicka Greene is mentioned in one source (not in article) as a scholar studying "hipster racism," but that study doesn't seem to have translated into actual scholarly work on the concept. It's just past something someone made up one day, and there are not sources available to establish its notability. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with Hipster sexism, this neologism seems to have beyond trivial usage. I'd be open to a redirect and/or merge here, but I'm having trouble figuring out to what. Racism? Not sure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not all articles need to have scholarly sources, only sufficiently reliable ones in the context. In this case, I think enough sources exist to justify an article on the topic. This article does have issues with NPOV, which I've tried to correct, but I don't think deletion is the right answer. (As an aside, as one of only a handful of editors to the article, I would have appreciated being notified of this AFD.) Robofish (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (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.

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) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in France

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

Very POV, and poor quality. RH - (rosscoolguy) (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The topic is undoubtedly encyclopedic.[31][32] That the article may not be in good shape at present is not grounds for deletion, only cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Solid topic and good sources already. Borock (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly a notable topic. The question is whether The Holy Hand Grenade of Brother Maynard of Antioch should be used to blow this piece of shit article to smithereens so that somebody can do the job properly, eventually. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other articles on France. Standalone is too presumpuous and fails NPOV. --DHeyward (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Clarityfiend. This is part of an established category and has no shortage of discussion in reliable sources. Specific concerns with POV are best discussed on the article's talk page. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend. Clean up is the answer here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. The article already has enough sources to establish notability, and a cursory search turns up lots of websites, articles, and books dealing with the topic. Just because it is currently WP:RUBBISH doesn't mean it should be deleted. What it needs is a hero editor to step up and expand it. Braincricket (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2013 (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.

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. (also withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of the Latin Woman

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

Contested PROD (article recreated after PROD deletion). ~~No independent references. The PROD reasons still apply: not a published book - available as a pdf download. Fails WP:Notability (books).~~ JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn with a bouquet to Tokyogirl79 for a magnificent WP:HEY save. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G11 and G12 - tagged as such. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G12 especially. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whoa there. Despite the original state of the article, I'm finding multiple sources that discuss this book and multiple, multiple sources that relist the story. It's not as easy as saying that it's just some random story and that its availability as a download negates any potential notability. I've added some sources to the article and am finding more. One or two of the sources are trivial, but so far I'm finding plenty to suggest that it would pass WP:NBOOK via the first and fourth criteria.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I not only found several book sources (all of which appear to be academic texts, I will note), I found several instances where the story was re-published in various academic textbooks in general, as well as various links that show that the story is used in many classrooms. ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) Removing this from Wikipedia would be a great disservice, I think, especially since sourcing does appear to exist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources added by TG. A single cursory search of Google Books shows a ton of sources. ~~I don't understand how 3 people Speedily jumped to Delete without apparent research.~~ This is a widely anthologized story used for teaching easily passing NBOOK #4. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now understand the rush to delete after seeing other activity around article creator. Still, this one notable enough to Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources that have now been found; apologies for not looking myself! (I've struck my earlier vote). Lukeno94 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lukeno94 above. This is a good example of how a delete tag can save an article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 3 December 2012 (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.

Discrimination Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Discrimination==
 <!-- New AfDs should be add to the top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Assyrian_sentiment}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discrimination_against_conservatives_in_the_context_of_an_opposition_of_same_sex_marriage}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discrimination_against_conservatives}}