Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic Penalty

Ethnic Penalty

Ethnic Penalty (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)

Subject is a non notable Neologism which was created by an account with no other edits other than to promote Reza Hasmath's 2012 book, and his Neologism. . Hu12 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure how new a phrase has to be to still be considered a neologism, but I was able to find 13 articles on HighBeam that use the term (The Economist, Daily Mail, The Independent, Jerusalem Post) as well as six books on Questia and about 40 newspaper articles on NewsBank, almost all UK newspapers. The oldest reference I found was from 1994. - MrX 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or complete rewrite: term appears to be notable, but this is a bare rewrite of A Dictionary of Human Resource Management (2 rev ed.), see partial text here. Hairhorn (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Merge to Discrimination, the main article on the general concept. BTW is it always minorities that suffer an ethnic penalty? The article seems to be saying so. BigJim707 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - The term has been around for 20+ years and is widely used in commonwealth countries (I am a PhD candidate looking at this topic). Merging it to discrimination does not do justice to the term as it is more about non-discriminatory reasons, like not having the same social networks as non-minorities, and so forth. To answer BigJim's question, the ethnic penalty generally refers to visible ethnic minorities. The article has been edited to ensure hairhorn's concerns are addressed. Oxfsoc (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, but perhaps merge. The current version seems adequately referenced, the phrase seems established as a term of art, and the current version has been rescued from copyright issues. I'm not certain there's a whole lot more to be said about this phrase, in which case it seems related enough to discrimination to be successfully merged without undue weight, but that's outside of AfD's bailiwick. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - There are plenty of hits in third party sources for the term and the article has some of said sources properly cited. audiodude (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - to Discrimination. This is merely a neologism for the encyclopedic concepts of Employment Discrimination and Wage Discrimination based upon race. As such, it is a fork and should be merged away. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Merge to Discrimination as per previous suggestions. - MrX 19:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep-I agree with users Oxfsoc and Audiodude. Notability undoubted.--Soroboro (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)