Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black names and racism in the hiring process

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 delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black names and racism in the hiring process[edit]

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

Way too much soapboxing and synthesis to be a viable encyclopedia article. On the article's talk page, an editor opined that this reads like someone's term paper, and I have to agree. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this is a notable topic, the present article has so many POV problems that the text is useless. Although the selection of references is also biased, some are useful. I suggest copying the reference list into userspace, and starting over. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't have put it better than Alessandra did. It's a notable topic but right now there's serious neutrality issues as well as soapboxing. It just reads like original research even with the resources linked in it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete This is a biased topic and is not suitable, as above. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 12:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; could be notable in principle but we'd want substantially changed (and broadened) content at a completely new title, I think. Although sourced, the existing content has problems and the title invites further problems. Userfying it could be a good move. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no problem with it being userfied. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Neither do I, of course, but the article's creator appears to be inactive, so there may not be much point in doing so. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2011 (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.