Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New racism


 * 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. Strictly weighing the !votes on policy based arguments, the consensus here is keep. I would recommend the nom and Garlicolive to make their suggestions for a merge or move on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

New racism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted or merged with its author's article at best, by the reasons that I stated in its 'Talk' page. I will copy them here, so upcoming user's do not need to go there:

''"I agree, this article should be deleted. It hardly fits Wikipedia's criteria of notability. It must be remembered that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that summary-only descriptions of works are specifically singled out as non belonging to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). Other than its first paragraph, this article barely resumes the concept provided by Barker (along with some citations, which does not necessarily recognizes it as of wide academic interest or respectability) and should be dealt with in that author's own article as a subsection. Having roughly a dozen of citations about a term or work is not enough to consider it 'highly cited', as Wikipedia's guidelines state that these kinds of subjects must be (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes); specially when other works and concepts have them by hundreds. Not to mention, also, that in academic disciplines that are so narrow as the study of sociological tendencies in late XX century European media, further guidelines of the Wikipedia apply: "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...)". Therefore, in agreement with Alfietucker, I shall start the procedures to delete this article.'' Miguerum (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge Agreeing with the AfD nominator, this article is too specific, but I vote for a merge instead of a deletion, the parent article could accomodate this term without issues. Garlicolive (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this article opens new insights in Marxist ideology that can be beneficial for academic references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTFS8 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This was left on the article itself. I copied it over. Pinging . &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. There are many academic sources covering this concept found by a focussed Google Scholar search, including nearly two thousand citing the book where it was first described. I note that the nominator expects hundreds of citations for a topic to be notable. This has thousands. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. E.g. this book builds on Barker's concept, but departs from it often enough that a separate article is justified. This topic is also mentioned in There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack. w umbolo   ^^^  20:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.