Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociology of disaster


 * 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) Mako001 (C) (T)  03:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SNOW. Mako001 (C) (T)  03:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sociology of disaster

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

As its maintenance template says, this article has a distinct essay-like tone. Indeed, looking at the talk page, it appears to have been written as some sort of school assignment. The bibliography and further reading sections are composed entirely of theses/white papers, etc. and the subject in general appears to have low notability. Propose deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Another Cringy Username (talk • contribs) 2022-02-12T07:32:20 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sociology of disaster is a reputable and well-discussed subfield of sociology, which counts Diane Vaughan amongst its ranks. In the wake of the Challenger Disaster, Vaughan published The Challenger Launch Decision, which argued that the normalization of deviance within NASA exacerbated the technical problems and produced the accident. This pioneering book propelled Vaughan on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board following the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, which is extremely unconventional for a sociologist, and speaks volumes about the impact of the subfield on the world at large. It's therefore expected to find it in chapters of sociology textbooks, , . , in books by sociologists, such as Normal Accidents (cited over 1,000 times between 1984 and 2003 ), The Challenger Launch Decision, , and this one from an Italian sociologist . The field has spawned other subfields or applied subfields, and I am only familiar with the niche field of the sociology of nuclear weapons disasters, so I hope editors from social sciences background can come to fill the gaps I may have on this topic. Pilaz (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The sections which actually warranted the tagging with "essay-like" and "tone" warnings back in 2018 have since been removed. The page is sourced to books and journal articles; per above, it can be further expanded. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: definitely a notable field - the article is even citing books specifically about it, naming the field itself in their titles. It looks like somebody came by and fixed most of the outstanding problems right before this AfD. I'll clear out a few more of the WP:REFBOMB issues but this looks like a viable stub now. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 12 February 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.