Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shallow reading

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow reading

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and may be WP:OR. giso6150 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting subject matter. I searched a bit and found numerous other scientific papers about the same matter, but all of them were seemingly made in China like the ones already in the article. I used google translate to translate "shallow reading" into simplified Chinese, and then googled the resulting 浅阅读. It gave me 3 million results, and the first pages of the results seemed to all be about the exact matter of shallow reading. The exact first result was a big Baidu encyclopedia article about shallow reading. Maybe this "shallow reading" doesn't apply to English or Latin characters as much. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This concept is similar to what I'd call skimming and we have some content about that at speed reading. There's plenty of scholarly sources about this under a variety of names. Andrew D. (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that merit a merge? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some merger but the direction is not clear and it would all be ordinary editing, not deletion. AFD is not cleanup. BTW, while I'm here, here's a book about the topic and its implications – The Shallows. Andrew D. (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't enough material for an article of its own then it merits only a section at Speed reading, doesn't it? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speed reading. How surprisingly poorly we look to cover this topic. It's a toughie because there's definitely a notable subject around here somewhere (though I'm inclined to think there are more common or broader terms than "shallow reading", e.g. skimming, scanning, Adler's "inspectional" reading, etc.). The biggest problem here is that we do cover this topic elsewhere and the content of this article looks to be based on a single source. Given the combination of these facts, this article does more harm than good and redirecting seems most appropriate for now. I do agree that "speed reading" is not ideal, though, as it emphasizes time rather than comprehension in the relationship between the two. Some other articles to consider when thinking about the best way forward: close reading, reading comprehension, reading (process), slow reading. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to speed reading. This seems like more-or-less the same thing as that. If there are different aspects to it, they can be explained (hopefully better) over there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to get better consensus on keep or redirect Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the Li reference, shallow reading was popularized by Nicholas G. Carr in his book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. It is partly about skimming, but also partly about the shortening of attention span through clicking of hyperlinks, checking Facebook as you read, etc. Hence I don't think this is synonymous with skimming. The book was a Pulitzer prize finalist and stimulated a lot of discussion; here is an example PBS Newshour segment on the idea. Searching for "The shallows" carr in Google News yields lots of articles in RS. So my sense is that this topic is notable. --Mark viking (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2016 (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.