Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multicultural education


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Multicultural education

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Political views aside, this article reeks of leftist bias, including such unsupported statements as "Whiteness is not included as an ethnicity—it becomes an invisible barometer of normality. Education is a form of ethnicity striping for economic success."

This is not an encyclopedic article; it belongs perhaps in a leftist publication, but not on Wikipedia. Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 5 July 2011.


 * Keep: For the following reasons:
 * 1) The passage you quoted was cited in the article as part of Kincheloe and Steinberg's book, Changing Multiculturalism, which notes on p.216 that blackness is seen as not-normal and that whiteness is "the common sense norm". So your own argument doesn't really hold up there.
 * 2) Multiculturalism has been a part of the U.S. educational program for the last 30-40 years, so the topic is certainly worthy of an article.
 * 3) Multiculturalism has in fact been part of the liberal political movement and has been very critical of conservative educational policies that have too often ignored the presence and contributions of non-Euroamericans; so even the most neutral article on multicultural education is probably going to read as a criticism of conservatism (a.k.a. "leftist bias").
 * Maybe the article should be better cited; maybe it should rely on a wider variety of sources other than Kincheloe and Steinberg; maybe it should be edited to provide a more clearly neutral tone regarding criticism of conservativism (there is no criticism section right now); maybe it should be renamed "Multiculturalism in U.S. education". But there's no good reason to delete the entire article. Aristophanes 68   (talk)  17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep See Encyclopedia of education and human development for its article on Multicultural Education and Its Typologies. Assembling such material into an NPOV whole will not be easy but seems feasible given time.  Our editing policy is to proceed by ordinary editing rather than deletion. Warden (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

One source hardly qualifies an article as being free from overwhelming bias. Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep since the other alternative is worse. What would be nice is a fairly short article telling the readers what multicultural education (a notable topic clearly) is, with some history. I don't seriously expect this to happen. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the only reasons stated by the nomination are WP:IDONTLIKEIT,, and WP:POV.  Of course it has a POV, but that can be fixed, like all the other issues, through the normal editing process.  Whole textbooks and college courses exist on this topic; thus it's clearly notable and a search should have been done before the nomination. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of the AFD and you get about 7,150 results. Seems like there would be more.  Hear about this all the time on the television news.  The topic is notable.  If you have a problem with the current way it is written, then discuss it on the talk page, and work it out through normal editing procedures.   D r e a m Focus  03:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubify: although the stated topic is most probably notable, the article itself appears to be on the topic of Joe L. Kincheloe's and Shirley R. Steinberg's theories of multicultural education -- which most probably isn't. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:05, 11 July 2011 (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.