Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteness theory

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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteness theory

Whiteness theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, draftify or redirect to Whiteness studies. Obvious OR essay. buidhe 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and whatever is not OR can be merged into Whiteness Studies.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can see many academic sources for Whiteness Theory in books and journals - [1][2][3][4][5][6], and it would appear to be something legitimately studied in academia. and should satisfy
  WP:GNG. The rationale for the AfD is faulty, and any other problems with its content should be dealt with in the article itself and AfD should not be the place to clean up articles. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep See the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Per
  WP:IMPERFECT, we should improve the page, not delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I'm tempted to call for
  (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Move to draft space. On a little further reflection, I feel the most suitable option would be to move the article to draft space and allow the creator more time to work on it, removing any OR, as well as ensuring the POV is neutral, and then when they feel they have done this they can submit it through AfC for review. --
  (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I do not object to draftifying, with the stipulation that the page go through AfC before being accepted. buidhe 17:06, 25 January 2019 (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.