Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 consensus is that this is OR by SYNTH and therefore falls to deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
    Dominant group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article is an amalgam of information contained in other, dedicated articles Robin S (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I added this page to today's AfD log, because I forgot to do so at the time. Robin S (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I am the article’s creator and a substantial contributor. The article contains information from 20 authors regarding aspects of a 'Dominant group'. By reference number the authors information is found on the following Wikipedia pages:

    1. Knowles - only 'Dominant group',

    2. Bourdieu - Culture, Archaeology of religion and ritual, Sociology of education, Structure and agency, and 'Dominant group',

    3. Spain - Kinmel Hall and 'Dominant group',

    4. Moore - only 'Dominant group',

    5. Hardiman - Christian privilege and 'Dominant group',

    6. Blumenfeld - Christian privilege and 'Dominant group',

    7. Lieberson - only 'Dominant group',

    8. May - only 'Dominant group',

    10. Reskin - only 'Dominant group',

    11. Moro - only 'Dominant group',

    12. Rosenberg - Rosalind Rosenberg and 'Dominant group',

    13. Rothman - only 'Dominant group',

    14. Young - Spatial justice, Iris Marion Young, Political freedom, Christian privilege, GIS and environmental governance, and 'Dominant group',

    15. Johnston - Human geography, Imperialism, Outline of anarchism, Anarchism, Karl Marx, Libertarianism, Individualism, and 'Dominant group',

    16. Gilmartin - Tropical geography, Imperialism, and 'Dominant group',

    17. Ås - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

    18. Andrén - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

    19. - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

    20. Benton - Evolutionary history of life, Paleontology, Extinction event, and 'Dominant group',

    21. Van Valkenberg - Evolutionary history of life, Extinction event, Life, Cat gap, and 'Dominant group'.

    • At least ten of these authors are discussing dominant groups, which meets the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Further, seven of these authors' information is unique to 'Dominant group'. The last three sections bring in a broader view of the concept. Author 1. Knowles provides a definition of the term. No one article on Wikipedia specifically focuses on the concept of a 'Dominant group'. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My principal argument against disambiguation is that the concept of a 'dominant group' such as defined by author 1. Knowles has been modified somewhat and applied to areas outside Sociology, yet the concept is basically the same whether by simple numbers of organisms, biomass, power, or whatever. There are dominant groups in other species and between species.
    • With respect to synthesis or original research WP:SYN states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Smerdis of Tlön is essentially correct that any synthesis perceived by the reader comes from the authors themselves.
    • As to merging, each of the subtopic articles either only mention a 'dominant group' a few times such as in Minority group (four times); Marginalization and Extinction event (twice); The Establishment, Romantic racism, Imperialism, Master suppression techniques (only once); Discrimination, Hegemony and Dominance (ecology) (not mentioned); or are articles in need of extensive revision such as Dominant minority, Elite, and Oppression. Each of these actually focuses on the article topic not necessarily on 'Dominant group' per se.
    • Concerning revision, the initial author content of twenty has been raised to forty-seven, hopefully adding clarity as well as content. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about 'dominant group', not about Cultural dominance/Cultural imperialism which is an article which has multiple issues. I've added a sentence within the introduction, "This numerical majority can be numbers of individuals, numbers of species, surface area, biomass, or maximum intensity, among many other applications of the concept." which should help clarify this point. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Your article doesn't address the definition of a dominant group either. You have synthesized information from many different fields using examples from these fields of dominance.Curb Chain (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smerge lots of useful sources, but the information would be better incorporated in some of the other linked articles. At present, this is a bit SYNTHy. Yunshui (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I think this is a terribly-written article. It reads like a term paper, and is difficult to determine context unless your familiar with the subject matter. The problem is that it is an amagalm of information with not a lot tying everything together, but I can see how it could be useful if significantly improved. Just because an article needs significant improvement, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Roodog2k (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguate. "Dominant group" is a highly plausible search term, but there are lots of things the searcher might be looking for. No objection to the smerge proposed by Yunshui, which isn't an incompatible outcome.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I haven't looked extensively at the history, so I don't know if this has been edit extensively during the nomination, but it doesn't seem unsalvageable to me. It is rather vague in spots and contains synthesis, but most of the synthesizing seems to have been done by the sources rather than here. Move to Dominant group (sociology) if it is decided to make this a disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep reasonable article topic. The material is to a certain degree related to other topics also and could be used there as well, but this quite specifically is acceptable in its own right. A little too much of an an essay in tone, rather than a summery, but still acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The article and its links are mish-mash of several topics, including social dominance and ecological prevalence, which have nothing to do with each other. One editor has been linking this article from articles about such disparate topics as reptile evolution, soil geology, and ethnography. The "topic" covered in the article is Cultural dominance along with a variety of other meanings of dominant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is a place specific article masquerading as a general article. I was unsure of this until I got to the religion section. The specific mention of "non-Christian" as the marginalized population shows a total failure to consider reality. This would imply that there are no dominate religious groups that are other than Christian, which considering power stuctures in most Muslim countries, India and Israel, Sri Lanka is just hogwash. Beyond this, considering power stuctures in some other countries, it is a sub-group within Christianity that is in question. We cover this topic with adequate articles on the history and politics of various countries and do not need this article trying to synthesize these complexed facts and doing so while ignoring the vast array of reality. I might try to edit the article but the underlying assumptions about the methods and means of discrimination are questionable. Besides this the various statements should be supported with sources and they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The whole article is riddled with assumptions that may or may not be correct. Statements like "minority groups do not discriminate" are hard to support as other than POV, and the article seems to assume a static understanding of the term "minority" without acknowledging that the way it is using the term differs from the way it is used in other contexts. The article also inadequately addresses the issues of context of dominance. The main problem is that is trying to describe as static and proscribed phenomena what actually are unique and cultural specific phenomena. The interaction of each group is conditions by its own unique attributes, a fact that this article is desgined to ignore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Essay-form synthesis of unrelated topics. Possibly there is an article to be written about any of the separate meanings, but this is not it.  Sandstein  05:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As noted by others, the article puts together a number of totally unrelated uses of the term "dominant group". We don't have articles on ambiguous terms: we have a disambiguation page linking to specific articles. "Dominant group (sociology)" and "Ecological dominance" are just two of the meanings covered here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I came here out of concern with Marshallsumter's edits in wikilinking all instances of "dominant group" to the article on AfD. It created numerous cases of overlinking where the concept(s) described in the Dominant group article have not been proven relevant in the respective topics. It is inappropriate and can be construed as original research by creating a semblance of importance in the Dominant group discourse. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dominant_group&oldid=1142189131"