Talk:Algorithms of Oppression

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Internet Start‑class Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): English429813 (article contribs).

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SBdolphin90 (article contribs).

Art+Feminism

This article was created or improved at an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon in 2018.Art+FeminismWikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminismTemplate:ArtAndFeminism articleArt+Feminism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 7 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GN75 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alenaley (article contribs).

Something fishy

What is meant?:

This result encloses the data failures specific to people of color and women which Noble coins...

and

 ... expressed criticism of the book, citing that the thesis of the text, based on the text of the book's official blurb ... could not be reproduced.

The latter is plain nosense. What was cited? How a thesis may be "reproduced"? Maybe cite=>claim and thesis=>results were meant?

At best, these are sloppy mental shortucts. At worst, I smell a COI here. Zezen (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafitification

@Confetticookie: @Kmk1108: @TennisLover4Ever: Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible, without including original research or unverifiable content, to write an article on that book that complies with the policy that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works, contained in criterion 1 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

This article body is almost entirely a summary or otherwise WP:Synthesis which use the subject of the article as source, or which cite promotional materials which are insufficient to establish notability. Please modify the article body to remove excessive detail on the contents of the work and focus on why it is notable to retain information on it of an encyclopedic nature. Otherwise please move it to draft space. Pursuant to draftification process if you have any objections to why it should not be draftified or have modified it for further review, please reply within at timely manner (2 weeks) with your objections or changes.Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanpet113 You are right that the summary is currently too long and detailed. If you wish to constructively edit the article for concision, that would be very helpful. A new "background" section would also be welcome. However, it is absurd to challenge the notability of a book which clearly passes WP:NBOOK from the sources present in the article, namely reviews in not just Booklist but even LARB, a highly selective review venue. It would be trivially easy to add dozens more reviews. Book reviews are not "promotional" sources, but exactly the secondary sourcing upon which contemporary book articles typically rely. I strongly oppose draftification on the grounds that the article is already more than a "summary-only" description of the work, and it is eminently possible to expand it further with excellent sourcing. If you are concerned about non-notable books you might start by looking at those which cite no sources for articles like Nanny Ogg's Cookbook. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]