Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypersegregation

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 merge to Racial segregation in the United States. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersegregation

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

"Hypersegregation" appears to be a neologism which means essentially the same thing as de facto segregation. The prefix "hyper-" appears to be quite meaningless in this context. I believe we should just make this page a redirect to Racial segregation and then add a brief note to that article, something to the effect of "Sociologists X and Y have proposed the term 'hypersegregation', but this term has not been widely accepted in the media". Most of the content in here could probably be merged if the content weren't so redundant (most of the things mentioned in this article are already mentioned in other segregation-related articles). So that's why I'm proposing this article for deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also am proposing that we delete and redirect Hyperghettoization, an article about a closely related neologism, to Ghetto.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but read on. The term is used in academic literature (hundreds of printed sources hits). That said, I have no opinion about possible merger IF we can find conclusive sources that say something like hypersegration, also known as [merge target]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both terms are used to distinguish certain African-American ghettos from others. Checking Google, hyper- is distinguished by certain extreme qualities and isn't a completely different thing. Suggest merging both into Racial segregation in the United States. It's telling that neither term is even mentioned in Ghetto#African American ghettos. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even sure why we need a separate term to distinguish African American ghettos from, say, Hispanic ones. Or why such a term would have the prefix "-hyper" attached to it; this would imply that African American ghettos are "more segregated" or "more ghettoized" than other types, and this is an inherently POV assertion, which makes these two terms inherently POV. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both hypersegregation and hyperghettoization into an article about racial segregation in the modern USA. Borock (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge with reserved possibility for expansion. I count on Google Scholar 12 papers with "Hypersegregation" in the title (800 combined citations) and hundreds more papers which are directly address hypersegregation. The objections above seem no different from objecting to Reduplication because that term is just redundant with Baby Talk. I would suggest deferring to the experts of the field on this one - the term is clearly defined, for example, in the most-cited article [1] where segregation is quantitatively defined on five axes, and hypersegregation is when a community shows segregation on all five axes (as opposed to just one or two as per normal). In other words, there's much more to this than a lay reader should claim expertise in. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2010 (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.