Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Feminist Anthropology

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 no consensus. KInd of confusing, but the gist of it is that everyone agrees the book is probably notable and this article isn't. Tokyogirl has a head start on a new article to replace this, and what I recommend is that she just either mergehist or delete and overwrite when she feels the new article has a snowball's chance. Or someone else can. For now, I'm going to just punt and close as no consensus, as there is a consensus for this old material (delete) but also a hope it can soon be replaced by something we can all agree on. Dennis - 2¢ 23:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Feminist Anthropology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement. Non-notable org. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure exactly what this page is about but it doesn't seem to be an organization--there is a book with the same name that has been reviewed in at least a few reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] (the last two are paywalled but came up in Google searches, so I'm assuming they mention this book.) Thus it seems that with a lot of work, this article could be kept if it is rewritten to be about this book. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with information about the book: From what I can tell, the page is supposed to be about a specific area of study in the anthropology field, black feminist anthropology. It is an actual field of study (see here) but so far it's a very underdevloped field and in most cases tends to be lumped together with feminist anthropology or African-American anthropology. I did find information, but so far the lion's share of the coverage for the term has concerned this specific book. I say that we turn this page into an article about the book specifically and include some information about the idea of the specific type of anthropology in a subsection. I have the beginnings of a book article at User:Tokyogirl79/Black Feminist Anthropology and if there's no argument, I'll just cut/paste this to the article. If anyone else wants to do it, I'm perfectly fine with that as well. The problem here is that the specific field of study hasn't received the necessary coverage and the current state of the article is so overly promotional and is such a WP:SOAPBOX that I'm tempted to say that we should just TNT it and move my book article to that space. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do kind of recommend TNTing the article first. This is just so overwhelmingly promotional and such a love fest for the book that I just don't really see any value in leaving it in the article history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with some good revising, this could be a very important article. I understand Tokyogirl79's argument, but I think there is some salvageable work here. I (re)wrote Feminist anthropology from the ground up, and can tell you that this is an important (but divergent) strain in anthropological thought that needs to be represented here (despite its current status as a plug for a book as both Mr. Guye and Tokyogirl79 point out). How about a little bit of WP:GOODFAITH WP:DONOTDEMOLISH love for the first timers? I would happily help do some of the work on this.Thebrycepeake (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebrycepeake: If you can find some sources that talk about this specific branch of anthropology then I'd be all for it. It's just that when I googled the term, the hits were predominantly for this specific book as opposed to the general practice of black feminist anthropology. My biggest concern for the article as a whole is that it's so promotionally written that you will pretty much have to re-write the article from scratch in order to do anything with it. When I made the article for the book in my userspace I found that I couldn't take anything from the article currently in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (replace with information about the book) per indented note, below ~~Comment~~. This is a new area for me, and I'm trying to understand what has been said so far. My impression is that the book meets notability guidelines, but that the current article is so bad, a case could be made that it should be blown up and replaced with Tokyogirl79's version. On the other hand, if the article is to be about the specific field of study, there's an issue of proving notability of that field; unless proof is provided, the article will fail this AfD. If I misunderstood then accept my apologies, and ignore the rest of my statement. If I got it right, wouldn't it be better to use Tokyogirl79's version for this article, and put information about the field of study into the Feminist anthropology article until such time as proof of notability can be gathered? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has come up with any additional reasoning, I vote for deletion of the current article -- blow it up and start over. Tokyogirl79 will presumably then recreate it with the version in their sandbox, but that doesn't require any special action. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article's scope is a bit wonky, but it should be about the book, which is the subject of many reviews.[4][5][6][7] The subfield or research interest of "black feminist anthropology" has less coverage, such that I can't find any independent discussion of the idea as a whole apart from the book. In this way, it appears to be a neologism and any info on the subfield can be included within the discussion of the book. There's no need to delete the article—just cleanup the promotional portions that don't pertain to the book. But overall, the book topic meets the GNG and should be kept czar ♔ 07:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Black Feminist Anthropology: Theory, Politics, Praxis, and Poetics. I find the case that this tome has been reviewed by multiple independent reliable sources compelling reason for inclusion. The information about the lead contributor (likely a living person) is totally unsourced and should be deeply truncated or eliminated entirely to meet BLP. To my eyes, it appears that a connected individual was trying to bring light to the book, and being a connected individual, couldn't limit her or his contributions to the one thing. BusterD (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.