Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination based on hair texture


 * 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 keep. I think discussions on the article talk page can begin on both whether the article should be renamed or the article merged. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination based on hair texture

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article's subject (discrimination allegedly based on hair texture) doesn't seem to actually be a 'thing'.

Much of the article is unsourced. What is sourced fits into two categories, either: 1) it's a sub-set of racism (afro hair etc), as stated by both the article and sources, thus should be discussed in Racism; or 2) is misrepresentation of the source. Like the example in the "Jamaica" section is (per the source) blatantly not "discrimination based on hair texture" but rather it is (quoting the source) discrimination based on religion.

Googling "Discrimination based on hair texture" finds sources that discuss the issue in the context of racism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A very difficult AfD. The discrimination is cited. It's just not clear to me if the discrimination is about race or hair texture and to reach a conclusion on that would seem like original research, or opinion. So I don't want to do that. I think deleting this would be a step too far, so I'd start off by discouraging that. As for an actual !vote, I'll pause and see if people have better takes than me.... 21:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to racism, or have a subsection on it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep content, but perhaps rename to something like "Discrimination against Afro-textured hair" or merge to Afro-textured hair, reflecting the actual content. Discrimination against African hair is definitely a real thing and a distinct encyclopedic topic, amply covered in many sources. But "discrimination based on hair texture" would suggest grouping this with, e.g., general anti-curly-hair prejudice and whatever other texture-based discriminations may exist, which wouldn't really make sense structurally. (Side note: it would be great (but a lot of work) to have an umbrella article on hair discrimination, which currently redirects to this article.) -- Visviva (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or shorten and merge into a broader article on different types of discrimination. I don’t think the topic is notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Oh dear. Yeah, it's a thing. It's an extremely well documented and studied thing and absolutely should not be redirected all the way up to racism. The two main questions are: (1) the extent to which the topic is broader than discrimination related to Afro-textured hair. That I'm not as sure about. If not, the approach is to move/rename it. (2) the extent to which it's notable outside of the US (given the existence of a separate article on Discrimination based on hair texture in the United States). It took seconds to find a whole lot of sources about this discrimination elsewhere. Just in the UK: BBC, Huffington Post, Huffington Post again, Independent, Independent again. These are from the first page of ghits. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, or possibly Merge. Agree 100% with CT55555's initial comment - this is a tricky one.  Looking at the comment above from Rhododendrites, is it possible that we could merge the content from Discrimination based on hair texture in the United States into this article?  I know that may be beyond the scope of a typical AfD discussion, but this particular one seems really thorny.  There's obviously plenty of coverage on the topic even outside the scope of the US, and the very article we are discussing here is pretty well cited.  I definitely don't see any case for deleting it altogether, but what exactly we should do with it is much harder to determine. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I'd go with keep by analogy to Discrimination_against_people_with_red_hair, where we had an extensive deletion discussion Articles_for_deletion/Discrimination_against_people_with_red_hair, as the discrimination does seem to be documented. Elemimele (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhododendrites. -KH-1 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a notable and increasingly important aspect of anti- discrimination law and norms in many places, although I'm agnostic about the exact title. Regarding the US, see also CROWN Act of 2022 and CROWN Act (California). Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:GNG, and would not be against merger of the two named articles. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep — numerous sources exist to demonstrate notability, and there are many more sources that exist and that haven’t been cited yet. White 720 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2022 (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.