Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (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 delete. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (anthropology)[edit]

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

Another Dominantgroupcruft WP:SYNTH violation, none of the sources join Dominant group and the topic together. Cerejota (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. The basic idea of dominance is already covered at Social Dominance Theory. -- 202.124.73.100 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as keen on deleting this one as I am on the others, since this is actually a topic in sociology/anthropology, but I'm a big advocate of WP:TNT. If the creator would agree to step away from it and other people were interested in working on it, I could support a keep, but otherwise I'd have to go with delete. 202.124: yes, that article exists but it's not very good, particularly as it's almost totally unreferenced –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deletion reasons mentioned by Roscelese. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same OR/SYN problems as the other articles in this series. LadyofShalott 04:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR. Glrx (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was prepared to accept this, but a closer look at the sources convinces me that there is SYNTH going on here. The strongest source (no. 1 in the current version), which promises a kind of definition, is less than it seems: "Observes that while elites and minorities in Canada are clearly defined, the category of "dominant group" has unclear limits and varies from one geographical region to another." The article itself is clearly an essay, there is no doubt about it--but the question is, is the topic itself notable. I am not convinced. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable synth. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AN/I thread, SYNTH article created for strange 'research' project Jebus989 ^✰ 14:56, 9 September 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.