Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteness theory

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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteness theory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:OR. The article starts with a claim that "Whiteness theory is understood as a specific theory in Whiteness Studies". However that article doesn't mention "whiteness theory". In the academic research literature there is some mention of "critical whiteness theory" but that bears little relation to what is discussed here. For example the main part of this article "The Pillars of Whiteness Theory" is not supported, and these pillars appear to have been created by the author of this article. The diagram here is also unsoruced WP:OR. --Pontificalibus 08:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, draftify or redirect to Whiteness studies. Obvious OR essay. b uidhe 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and whatever is not OR can be merged into Whiteness Studies.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see many academic sources for Whiteness Theory in books and journals - [1][2][3][4][5][6], and it would appear to be something legitimately studied in academia. and should satisfy WP:GNG. The rationale for the AfD is faulty, and any other problems with its content should be dealt with in the article itself and AfD should not be the place to clean up articles. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Per WP:IMPERFECT, we should improve the page, not delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm tempted to call for wp:TNT on this due to the numerous issues it is facing. In addition to the identified OR, the article is American-Centric and is pretty much as far from a neutral point of view as you can get. It's possible, from the sources others have provided, that this is a theory notable enough for inclusion here, but I'm not sure that bringing the current article up to spec will be less work than creating a new one from scratch. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. On a little further reflection, I feel the most suitable option would be to move the article to draft space and allow the creator more time to work on it, removing any OR, as well as ensuring the POV is neutral, and then when they feel they have done this they can submit it through AfC for review. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to draftifying, with the stipulation that the page go through AfC before being accepted. b uidhe 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2019 (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.