Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancesterology


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ancesterology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This seems a complete WP:NEOLOGISM, invented by one person a few years ago and not gained any wider support, as all sources (the very few that one can find) trace back to that. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, likely also WP:OR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ancesterology (also Ancestorology) is a research methodology used to study the African Diaspora through the interdisciplinary lenses of history, cultural anthropology and visual studies. Ancesterology uses a qualitative design approach to analyze evidence such as (participant) observation, lived experiences, interviews, textual analysis and abductive reasoning to answer questions that cannot be otherwise answered by quantitative data. Are you suggesting that history, anthropology and visual studies do not have valid research methods because that is the basis for Ancesceteroloy? Getting distracted by the term conflicts with the theory and methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracethetrade (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have seen the term used for decades, casually, occasionally, informally and somewhat tongue in cheek, by genealogists of all stripes to make what they do sound less mundane (or to avoid being confused with gynecologists). The specific application here, first applied just 4 years ago and its specific use only referenced to the coiner's own writings, is definitely neologistic. The described techniques comprising this 'ancestorology' are all part and parcel of standard high-quality genealogy as applied to difficult cases, independent of socio-cultural background, rather than being unique to the target community's problematic history, so maybe redirect to genealogy? Agricolae (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not "Africa" related as the African diaspora is widespread. This term has been around for several decades but it lacked the credibility of a theory and method and is spelled with the suffix, "or". Misconstruing this as a genealogical term undermines the method as a valid research process that can be replicated while researching the African diaspora.--Tracethetrade (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not misconstruing it as a genealogical term, when the term has been used by genealogists for a long time. Agricolae (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I prodded the article about a week ago, when none of the sourcing even mentioned the term. Now, the only source which mentions the term is a "definition" by the person who invented the term. All the rest don't even speak about it. Thus, it appears to be WP:SYNTH. Searches turned up a single in-depth mention of the term, again, that is the term's inventor's page. As such fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Basically just "what did this person of African descent do?". Or at least I think that's what it means, because this entire article is confusing and unusually verbose. Plus, yeah, no sources. AdoTang (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - That's myopic, ""what did this person of African descent do?" and technically applies to Van Gogh but completely misses the point of reflection and contributions to humanity. Turning on a light or AC, riding down a railroad, using GPS, turning on your gas stove (ref: gas pipelines)is a direct result of the contributions that are uncovered through this methodology.  I thought only biographies had to be "notable"? Csikszentmihalyi's theory does not apply here. Is this a valid, peer-reviewed source by a credible publisher? https://brill.com/view/book/9789004446120/BP000002.xml  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracethetrade (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry, can we get on the same level here? What is this page about exactly, Trace? AdoTang (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is a valuative science that is used to identify the presence of African in non-African nations. It is a decolonial, not post-colonial research methodo--Tracethetrade (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)logy. Valuative means to consider other sources of information such as food, ctoms, language, semioptics, in addition to "official records."
 * Delete GScholar only has articles she's written as sources for the term, Jstor has none. I don't think the term has gained traction. No third party sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can someone provide a comment on the guidelines?

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. --Tracethetrade (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Two issues here. 1) it says 'sources', plural. Here we really only have one source, Royston's book, giving any detailed coverage to the term (there is a second cite, but it is just to a website hosting a chapter of the same book). 2) An important word here left unaddressed is "independent". In general, when we only have a single source coining, if not the word itself then at least the specific usage of it, and all we have to cite is the author's own writings, then that is non-independent. We want to know that there is an agreed upon set of facts, a common description, coming from multiple sources that are independent of each other as well as independent of the specific source. Agricolae (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - JSTOR is a good source for articles and book reviews, it is not the only source for articles and book reviews and of course it has no international presence in the way that Oxford might. GScholar is not peer reviewed, but texts are thoroughly vetted if the publisher is reputable. The word anceterology appears in this 1999 dissertation, and does not present the word as a genealogical term but rather a historical methodology. The corresponding manuscript is here here. Don't know what a third party means in your view, but if word usage is claim, the owners of these sites did not get the memo.
 * http://ancestorology.blogspot.com/
 * https://www.blogger.com/profile/11378963483756334137
 * https://ancestorology.wordpress.com/page/5/


 * The word is not a new invention as DoubleGrazing suggests. These website examples are limited to use of the word. Ancestorology is a research method driven by a decolonial theory.--Tracethetrade (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the word itself is nothing new. However, of the three websites you list here, numbers 1 & 2 are the not independent of each other, they are just the blog and homepage for the exact same professional genealogist who is using the term simply as a synonym for generic genealogy.  #3 is independent of 1 & 2, but again, there is no indication that they are doing anything but local Missouri genealogy that is unrelated to the African diaspora. Citing people using the same term to mean something different really doesn't really make a case for this usage being established. Indeed, if anything it argues against it. Agricolae (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Can't find any third party sources and fails WP:GNG. Sharath Abhivadyah  Talk Page 02:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Genealogy. The methodology described is not unique to those of African heritage.  I suspect there is useful research done into genomes to determine what part of Africa a person's slave ancestors was shipped from, but otherwise nothing much different from any other genealogy.  I doubt there is anything worth merging.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is whole "debate/conversation" is utter nonsense. Delete the entry and move on.--Tracethetrade (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.