Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-racist mathematics

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-racist mathematics
In addition to being silly, this doesn't appear to be notable either - 164 google results, number one being this article. --Tothebarricades 23:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC) )Keep as it 'works' as a page. Peter Ellis 19:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per the University of Georgia . I can see why the Google test should be used on people and fiction, but educational theories?  With references?  CanadianCaesar 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Per CanadianCaesar. This is another example of why the Google test is not the be-all end-all of notability. ⟳ ausa کui × 23:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment At first sight, I see POV, but I'm not sure thus I'm not voting yet. What do you think? --Neigel von Teighen 23:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the article should stay, but I think that someone with knowledge of the topic should expand the article to add more specific information, examples of Anti-racist mathematics. I dont feel that the article really provides enough information for a decent understanding of precisely what Anti-racist mathematics is, merely expressing a general sentiment of post-modernism somehow applied to mathematics. PredatorX 12:08, 26 August 2005 (GMT+12)
 * Keep. Sadly not a hoax. Sdedeo 00:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Usually I'm a huge fan of the Google test, but I've heard of this stuff, and User:CanadianCaesar provides a good reason for keeping this article as well. --Idont Havaname 00:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Amren (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable postmodern foolishness. I've heard of this too. Klonimus 03:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. A VfD nomination of this sort could be considered to be a form of vandalism. Why are we wasting our time voting? linas 03:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Relax a bit. Given how odd it sounds and the little Google data that can back this up, I don't think we can blame the nominator. It's best to be careful and question an article's validity when in doubt. Only when they do it multiple times, it can be a problem . - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeez, chill. I didn't know this had any merit. I admit my error. Simply hadn't heard of such a thing and couldn't find any evidence that the concept was widespread - now I have, so I suppose I withdraw the nomination. --Tothebarricades 09:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep -PlainSight 04:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per CanadianCaesar.
 * Keep. I revised the article again and I no longer consider it to be POV (see my comment ). Then, it is a keep. --Neigel von Teighen 21:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, listing is based  on  unsound reasoning. Google does  not = encyclopedic. Tasks  you can do 13:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. As a reader that never eard of this subject before, I don't get the slightest clue on what (anti-)racist math is from this article. So the article subject (no matter how silly it looks to me) may need an article on WP but the current article is almost a speedy delete for lack of content. It has a nice intro, a section on controversy and references, but it has zero content on the subject itself. Nabla 17:05:27, 2005-08-27 (UTC)
 * Comment. Until now, all votes have been in favor of keeping the article, and the lister has withdrawn the nomination.  I move that the discussion be closed. --Idont Havaname 20:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree that as no-one has voted for deletetion, this discussion shoudl be terminated. It would be a big help if teh article is written with greater cohereence. An opening sentence or two defining the notion would eb a big help. Tompw 12:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The article has been vastly improved recently. Keep. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth)
 * Keep this poignant reminder of why I'm no longer an academic. Well-written; good job, all those who have contributed.  Antandrus  (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --tranquileye 12:19:53, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Motion to close
I move that this VfD be closed as a concensus to keep the article has been established. Klonimus 01:23, 31 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.