Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unconscious bias training


 * 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. Repurposing and other improvements do not require an open AfD. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Unconscious bias training

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article seems to draw from a very small pool of authors and appears to have been assembled largely of recent and fringe research( very few pages over the last 20 years, and then a few more but quite recently). Additionally much of the provided citations are APA styled with only the year, having the associated bibliographical metadata missing. This suggests that its contents may have largely been lifted form a single essay. It seems to have come into existence last year largely form contributions of only 2 authors, which may explain this phenomenon.

Either it does not does not belong on the Wiki WP:Notability, or should be part of the Implicit stereotype article.v Alternatly I would recommend incubating it see Incubation Ethanpet113 (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * comment I'm having some serious problems with this. On the one hand, some GBook hits talk as if such a thing existed (though I'm having a lot of trouble with the searching: most "hits" don't seem to contain the phrase). The problem is that if it be a real thing, then there should be textbooks/manuals backing it up, and from what I see, there aren't any. I can't see WP as the place to write such a manual, even in summary form. I'd like to see more responses on this before I commit to a position. Mangoe (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Try gscholar instead for better results. SpinningSpark 14:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Those hits all have the same problem I noted: they mention it, but they do not describe it. If there is real training, then there are training manuals and the like. Where are those? I am not getting hits on them; it tempts one to write an article for one of the major policy mags doing research on how it's all BS. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Training manuals are self-published by companies doing the training, so even if publicly available, will not be considered RS. Videos and courses clearly do exist though, just follow some of the ads.  As for scholar, the Noon source clearly discusses training in depth.  I don't have access to the Wall Street Journal source, but the snippet shows that it is much more than a passing mention with at least two encyclopaedic statistics that could be incorporated in the article. the Williamson source has the term in the aticle title and is clearly entirely about the subject.  I'm seeing others that are more than passing mentions. SpinningSpark 15:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unconscious bias training has become an ubiquitous part of the management toolkit. Numerous companies offer courses.  RS discussing this exact phrase are readily found.  I've got nothing to say about the merits of the article as it now is, but the subject itself is easily notable. SpinningSpark 14:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is not bad enough to require WP:TNT. This is a clearly notable topic, just given all the major news coverage on various companies like Starbucks doing mass unconscious bias training, as well as the training that some police departments have undergone in response to Black Lives Matter. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 23:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To add on, here's just a few sources I found that discuss unconscious bias training in depth and in detail:


 * 1) A meta study of studies on effectiveness of unconscious bias training
 * 2) Detailed Atlantic article about Starbucks' unconscious bias training process and effectiveness
 * 3) Psychology today article on implicit bias training
 * – FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 23:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per FenixFeather. The links supplied are useful. Indeed, it is notable enough. Rosario (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Repurpose as general Bias training. See  . Starbucks and the Deparment of Justice are not psychologists.  w umbolo   ^^^  17:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * per above source discussion, keep Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2018 (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.