Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination

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 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.[1][2] 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. ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) 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: