Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenocentrism: Difference between revisions

Xenocentrism (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)

The article is a dictionary definition of the word. There is no discussion of the thing itself. Is it a good or bad thing? What causes it? How common is it? What are its effects? There is no evidence given that the scanty sources even ask these questions, much less suggest answers. Borock (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources provided in the article do not seem to discuss the topic in depth, one was one page in a book, one 3 pages, and one was a book on a related topic. A search of Google books shows mostly copies of WP. A recent news story used the word incorrectly, probably meaning to use "ethnocentrism." Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - looks like something someone invented that hasn't subsequently been used much by others. The "related topics" seems to only be related as the result of some not-very-clever synthesis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The concept appears in textbooks about sociology such as Sociology and there seem to be plenty of corresponding papers too. The root concept seems to be ethnocentrism and we have pages for lots of other derivatives such as Afrocentrism, Eurocentrism, Indocentrism, Consumer ethnocentrism, Polycentrism, &c. There seems to be a significant overlap with xenophilia and so there's good scope for some merger to consolidate these pages. Our editing policy is to do this without deletion so that we preserve the editing history and maintain helpful search links. Andrew D. (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping. Also you've recycled the editing policy in countless AfDs, it does nothing to advance how an article for deletion is notable, I doubt any closing admin takes "editing policy" into consideration. LibStar (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument for keeping as it states "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". WP:PRESERVE provides numerous suggestions for improving content as an alternative to removing it. See also alternatives to deletion. Admins certainly bear these principles in mind per WP:DGFA, "by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy". Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and possibly merge, per Andrew D. --PanchoS (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also support a merge with xenophilia as an alternative to deletion. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think there's enough significant coverage to merge a great deal of content across. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google Books search brings up a number of sources that could be incorporated into a longer article on this topic. -- GreenC 14:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 14:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given that a Google book search turns up enough cites. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added a couple of sources that certainly could be expanded upon. Certainly the subject Googles. Other people found hits in Google books.  :User:Stalwart111 should be ashamed of himself for accusing this of being made up without doing due research to make such claim. Such a misstatement could cause undue influence to delete an article that is appropriate to keep. What I added came up in the second page of a simple Google search. On a personal note, I was not specifically aware of this as an articulated concept until I read this, but I was trying to figure out the motivation behind the current Buick advertising campaign and why I and so many other Americans would not consider buying an American car, ever. Sure, decades of gas guzzling cars that fall apart give us a background rationale, but even as the American manufacturers might make better cars (so they claim), many people would not give them a second look because of Xenocentrism. Its a thing that actually answers my own question. I learned something today from wikipedia. Misinformed or short-sightedly killing this article would prevent other people from having that same opportunity. Trackinfo (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, I'm not "ashamed of myself" at all and that's a pointless and baseless ad-hom given the content of the article, the quality of the sources provided and the fact that multiple others have expressed the same view. Everything is something someone made up one day; the question here is whether that something has subsequently gained enough significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Misinterpreting my statement doesn't make it any less true. There are, as pointed out, multiple passing mentions of the subject and a handful of more expansive paragraphs that all lead back to the same genesis. That's not "significant coverage" enough for me, though I've supported the sensible merge suggestion put forward above. Maybe read things a couple of times before shooting from the hip. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have become more conciliatory suggesting "Sensible merge" but that still frequently means to kill the subject. It blends in with the merged subject, it gets chipped away in small edits and what do you know, after a year or so, its gone completely or maybe a passing mention remains. I've seen this too often in other contentious cases (this is contentious because it is an AfD) so I think merging is a bad option. It usually is, unless the goal is to make the subject go away. You already said "I don't think there's enough significant coverage to merge a great deal of content across." I don't suggest you had that ulterior motive, but you didn't do sufficient research when you said "looks like something someone invented that hasn't subsequently been used much by others." You spoke from an uninformed perspective and that is misguiding the consensus of this discussion. I drifted into my personal interest in the subject I was previously unaware of by name. More googling, it seems other people, common folk, have been using the term in the exact context I used it --ls1tech.com/forums/street-racing-kill-stories/406672-reasons-why-ricers-tick-me-off.html-- see here from over 8 years ago. That's not a wikipedia source, its not for the article, but it shows the term being used. I've added a few other sources, all from Google that show it in use is other academic research. The University of Florida includes it as a key term in their sociology class. OK, that is Florida. Here's a tip for doing a Google search. More and more, the top pages are being bombed by irrelevant results caused by sites paying for rankings. With that Google is less dependable (and are eventually headed for the same xenocentric effect of the auto industry, I digress). You actually have to look a little deeper before you determine that everything is junk. But simply put, if you get more than 10 pages of hits, there most likely is some gold in there. It takes some serious effort to read all those pages to say there is nothing of validity there. Trackinfo (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your unsolicited advice and non-apology but I know how to use Google. You say I "have" become more conciliatory as if your comment prompted as much. But my second comment was only hours after my first and more than a week before yours. Who didn't do "sufficient research" if one of us appears uninformed (but isn't) and the other didn't even bother reading the discussion. Your non-reference, if anything, supports my original assertion - that this was something someone coined that hasn't since received the sort of coverage required to make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Your bad-faith opinions with regard to merging are noted, but that doesn't make it any less a legitimate option at AFD (by long-standing consensus and WP:DISCUSSAFD). Guess I shouldn't hold my breath for that apology. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are consistent with your handle. Enjoy humming your tune while you close your eyes and cover your ears. That isn't the way you learn. So all I hope is for other respondents to look at what is present in Google and base their "vote" on that. Trackinfo (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your response to getting called out for a baseless personal attack is to respond with another personal attack. Mate, we've all learned plenty from you today. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Xenophilia. Google ngram search indicates ^[1] this extremely rare academic neologism first appearing in 1958 and then reappearing in only subsequent citations is already declining in usage and the exactly correspondent rival term xenophile has established a 5:1 historically stable advantage over its rival term. -Augustabreeze (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to be elaboration on this by sources that could be deemed reliable. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]