Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racialization

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. Consensus that this is a notable topic, and TNT doesn't fully apply here. Cleanup can (and perhaps should) still be done, but that is not a matter for AfD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racialization[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is rife with issues—undue weight to various topics, including race in art making up the bulk of the history section, unattributed contentious POVs, delivering in wikivoice unclear and POV'd phrases like Adherents of Judaism, Islam, and Sikhism can be racialized when they are portrayed as possessing certain physical characteristics, despite the fact that many individual adherents of those religions do not possess any of those physical characteristics.

This is bad. I also don't think racialization is significant enough to have its own article, considering the Racial formation theory and Race articles which already include the bulk of the encyclopedically appropriate content in this article. Information about racism in education and the workforce is represented at Employment discrimination and Discrimination in education. The information about Orientalist art is much better represented at Orientalism#Art. Zanahary (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article’s body is not actually about racialization—it’s information about racial realities (discrimination, Orientalist aesthetic production, racial disparity) that come from sources that analyze said information through the lens of racialization. Zanahary (talk) 1:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more quotations, all unattributed:

One of the most prominent examples of Orientalist work in art is a piece by Eugène Delacroix titled Women of Algiers in their Apartment... Fine textiles, hookahs, and other paraphernalia adorn the room, which represents a European fantasy of an exotic scene. [citing, but not attributing analysis to, some top 10 list]

Racialization is a long process, and members of each group are categorized based on their perceived differences relative to those who are considered elite within a society.

Further significant research in this area is aiding politicians and policy makers in creating a more equal society that embraces and supports different racial and ethnic groups.

A positive application of racialization is nationalism, whereby the created race seeks to assert cultural and national aspirations which are compatible and accommodating to other groups. [no citation]

Racialization is then normalized by the promotion of "colorblindness" through the use of "soft" language which avoids highlighting ethnic differences.

Day laborers experience "race" and this has impacted their integration into the labor market. [uncited]

Racialization in an educational setting is apparent based on the teacher and the background they come from. The teacher’s race along with their views that came along through socialization growing up can affect the way the students portray themselves in a classroom setting. It also has to do with the number of people who come from the same background because the majority of a population will dictate which group is being racialized. An example of students being racialized by their teachers and institutions can be seen through the way high schools teach in America today. Zanahary (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these are close to common knowledge in Western social studies in my experience, this is an issue of referencing style not of original research. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deletion is not cleanup. A simple search for the word "racialization" on Google Books yields dozens of results with the word "racialization" in the book title, implying that the topic is extremely well-covered by reliable sources. The issues described above can all be resolved through normal editing; unsourced statements can be removed, and POV or undue sources can be swapped with better ones. Left guide (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a deletion-as-cleanup argument (though the article, if it were to continue existing, would need basically a complete ground-up rewrite):
I also don't think racialization is significant enough to have its own article, considering the Racial formation theory and Race articles which already include the bulk of the encyclopedically appropriate content in this article. Information about racism in education and the workforce is represented at Employment discrimination and Discrimination in education. The information about Orientalist art is much better represented at Orientalism#Art.
Zanahary (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Left guide, you should know that some IP just reverted all the changes that both you and I have made to the article, including removing the AfD notice. Zanahary (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: yeah I noticed that too, but thanks for the heads-up (and for restoring the notice). I’m not too attached to my edits, especially on an article I only encountered from skimming the AfD log and thus have little outside interest in. I was just trying to do what seemed to me like obvious remedial drive-by cleanups, but I guess someone else disagreed. Looks like that IP is genuinely interested in improving the article. If this article is kept, maybe you two can continue having dialogue on the talk page as to how to improve it. Left guide (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see why this has been a bit of a mess for a few years; it's a difficult topic to write about, and it would take a lot of research to do the cleanup. The term, as distinct from cultural assimilation, unquestionably meets notability requirements in substantial independent academic usage. I also object to a complete WP:TNT: while I can agree there is undue weight for some sources, possibly some original research, and the article has become somewhat of a coatrack -- there are plenty of statements that are sourced and randomly picking a couple I was able to verify the claims. I would recommend to start with cleanup, trying to find sources for unattributed quotes, or if not removing them. I would like to see this article improve to the point it can meaningfully be put in summary style in the cultural assimilation article. Also, I would consider adding this article to Template:Cultural_assimilation and maybe also Template:Discrimination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This is not the simplest case. On the one hand, the article's topic is certainly justified here. On the other, it has some pretty serious problems, and, judging by the tag dates, uncorrected over the years. On the third hand, there is some good in this article, so WP:TNT is probably too early to do. My suggestion is to send it to AfC. Thus, if no one wants to do its cleanup, it will be deleted after 6 months. And the tags will still be there, so AfC people will know what the problems are. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on how to move forward yet, although the draftify suggestion prima facie has merit if this article isn't kept in mainspace. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the issue of racialization can be included in articles such as Racial Formation Theory, it is ultimately a different concept to Racial Formation Theory, and it would be beneficial to have an article that could fully expand on it and explain issues of racialization in detail. Even if currently it seems like this article isn't doing a good job of that, I still think it's a complex enough topic to warrant it's own article instead of just putting the information about it in other articles. Sillypilled (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, exceedingly distinct concept commonly invoked in literary studies. No immediate evidence of major OR or POV-pushing issues, subject is primarily used in reference to a specific Western paradigm of race so established racial discourses already within that paradigm do not constitute POV and attribution is often obvious from context. I do not see anything that could not be fixed with time. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problems are with the article here on Wikipedia. The subject is covered by a number of peer-reviewed journal articles. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2024 (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.