Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-racism in mathematics teaching (2nd nomination)


 * 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 and redirect to Anti-bias curriculum. (If anyone feels there is any remaining content that should have been merged, please contact me or any admin for access to deleted content.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-racism in mathematics teaching
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is wraught with serious problems. First off the mathematician Euclid, from ancient Egypt, is referred to as African-American, a nationality that didn't exist under the 1770s. Second of all, there appears to be some sort of joke going through the article. Progressive matricies, a type of IQ test, has been confused with the political term "progressive" and called politically correct. Finally, a joke is made about how Rosa Park's didn't learn math, an assertation that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. When I searched the page in google, all I saw were wikipedia links. A speech by Thatcher from the 80s is the only reference to a supposed "phenomenom" in modern teaching. Completely ridiculous. Also, a joke is used stating that LaTinisha is a common African American name and should replace Mary, not noting that Mary and Emily are also a name many African-American girls share. Themane2 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Anti-bias curriculum. While this article has had serious problems and poor sourcing for years, the joke vandalism was, as far as I can tell, from some time in the last few months. Even if the jokes are removed, the article is still flawed, and as I have have discussed on the talk page, the core arguments are already covered in the marginally better 'Anti-bias curriculum' article. The only counter argument I've seen on talk is that a few sources have been found which do use the term 'Anti-racism in mathematics'. These sources are few in number and fail to clearly delineate why math needs specific approaches not found in Anti-bias curricula in general. They are not strong enough to support a stand-alone article. Dialectric (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, the great irony of this article is that it assumes that the reader would be American or (at least) familiar with American context, thus perpetuating systematic bias... --Soman (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This bias is particularly absurd given that most of the refs that actually use the term are British.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Every article has a few inaccuracies. Fix them rather than ask for deletion. I think that Anti-racism in mathematics teaching is one of Wikipedia's finest articles. Wikipedia's neutrality policies require to give more weight to the majority view (WP:RSUW). The majority ideology is liberalism, including anti-racism. I vote not against anti-racism in mathematics teaching, but to create more articles like that.Mathematrix (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The question is not, 'Is anti-racism in mathematics teaching in the world at large a good thing?', but 'Is anti-racism in mathematics teaching a suitable topic for an article in Wikipedia?'. Deltahedron (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Sorry if I make two entries, but I'm making an entirely different point. In the first discussion for deletion (Articles_for_deletion/Anti-racist_mathematics), the consensus was to keep it. What has changed since then? Nothing. If anything, there are more sources! So keep it, per CanadianCaesar. Mathematrix (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia afd policy is that you can only vote once. You should either change one vote to a 'comment', or combine your two entries. The earlier deletion discussion is from 2005. Notability and sourcing guidelines were looser at that time, and this discussion should be grounded in current WP:N.Dialectric (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is clear that the subject of the article is notable: there are reliable academic sources.  It is equally clear that the article as it stands is a mess.  Deltahedron (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Anti-bias curriculum. Having put some work in there now seems too little on the specfic issue of mathematics as opposed to the controversies over the curriculum in science or education generally.  There might be material enough for a full article at some point in the future.  Deltahedron (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Merge and redirect per Deltahedron. Thank you Dh, it is all too rare to see someone put time into an article, much less put time in and then admit their best efforts are insufficient. And the elephant in the room, that no one seemed to know the name of or want to admit or something, is WP:NPOV. Probably because it is pretty rare to see PoV in an article these days. Even Delta's elbow grease was not enough to remove its stain. Anarchangel (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Anti-bias curriculum, there doesn't seem to be enough content about mathematics specifically to justify a standalone article.--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cynical hoax in poor taste with a racist sub-text. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC).
 * What exactly is claimed to be the hoax here? Is it the notion that there is such a thing as "Anti-racism in mathematics teaching", or the content of the article as it was when nominated for deletion, or the content as it stands right now ?  Deltahedron (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is a snide parody of political correctness and has a sub-text of racism. If you can't see that I can't help you further. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
 * AFD is not cleanup. Are you arguing for deletion because the topic is not notable, or because no satisfactory article could ever be written on the subject, or what?  Just saying you don't like the current content is not a deletion argument.  Incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, my attempt to clean it up was precisely to get rid of the bad joke aspects, we are actually in agreement as far as that goes.  Deltahedron (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's great that we agree. I am inclined to think that a satisfactory article can't be written, so best deleted. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Deltahedron (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find any reliable sources discussing the perspective defined in the article. The sources already in the article are either (1) unreliable (blogs and junk journals) or (2) focussed on the different issue of increasing minority participation in STEM areas. -- 101.117.59.221 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jay  Jay What did I do? 18:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - with only one keep vote of tenuous rationale, it appears to me that the only issue with consensus is whether this should be merged or deleted. As a merge/redirect voter, I also support deletion if the majority fall into that position.Dialectric (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect The article is mostly about anti-racism in teaching, such as using different kinds of names for people in story problems. The article has almost noting to say about math specifically. It does not deserve an independent article.
 * Delete fully covered at Anti-bias curriculum, no need for redirect as this is not a likely search term. Covered by existing rediects to Anti-bias curriculum. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (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.