Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art)

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. per WP:SNOW. The other "Dominant group" articles should be closely scrutinized and nominated if necessary and assuming this has not already been done. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (art)

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

This is not a thing. Most of the text and references here are completely irrelevant, and those that actually do discuss "dominant group" and art are referring to the general definition of "dominant group," ie. the sociological definition, not to some definition specific to the field of art. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know what the actual topic of this article is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - well-nigh incomprehensible collection of text that doesn't seem to mean anything substantive. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - NOTE: This author has created a whole cluster of these, each worse than the next. See, for example, Dominant group (Moon). Could all of these be dealt with as a group? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I noticed that there were a lot of them, but I didn't want to mass-nominate on the off chance that there was a topic there in some of them. (I have no natural sciences knowledge, and "dominant group (anthropology)" might be referring to a thing.) I mean, feel free to nominate whichever other ones you feel like. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this article is in keeping with all Wikipedia policies for an encyclopedic article. It has notability (11 inline citations discussing 'dominant group' and its association with art), is not original research by definition, and does correlate the art or artists described to that which art is often connected: a dominant group, social in these cases. Additional clarification in the introduction may help. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's creator and substantial contributor. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes it is a topic. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply - no, it is not: it is "synthesis by Google": taking a meaningless congeries of search-engine results that happen to use the two words "dominant" and "group" in a row, and assuming a priori that the coincidence of words has some deep structural meaning, stitching it all together with meaningless nonce-words like "metadefinition"! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small but critical point is that applying a definition is not synthesis or original research; hence, the phrase 'by definition'. Anyone can apply definitions. Another editor has pointed out that paraphrasing, e.g., "dominant group as it occurs in articles about art" with 'dominant group (art)' may be causing a lot of the problems. Alternate title suggestions are welcome, but, probably moot at this point. The good news is that applying an AfD has jumped the readership of this article by a factor of ten. What really bothers me is that except for editors DGG and Mozzy66 who actually are on the list for the subject of this article, the rest of the deleters seem to be from sociology where the term 'dominant group' has steadily increased in use since 2005. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much!" Marshallsumter (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks thou dost talk utter bullshit. (Which isn't a term from sociology, though it probably should be.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think most people are "from sociology" - whatever that means - I'm certainly not. LadyofShalott 02:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By way of preface, my personal opinion is that identity politics has been the centre of the moral universe in the humanities department for the past forty-odd years or so, and the result has been an indigestible mass of turgid prose from armchair revolutionaries trying to out-transgress one another, serene in their conviction that their incomprehensible screeds are striking mighty blows against the hegemonic patriarchy that ignores them. The editor who's able to wade through that stuff and provide a readable synopsis in plain English would be doing a favor to not only the encyclopedia but to the human race.

But, the current article reads like a quote-farm from these texts. This raises not only unencyclopedic issues but also originality issues. I think a successful article will have to at minimum provide an original synopsis of all of these points of view, and not let the sources speak for themselves. They can't speak for themselves; they just aren't able any more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, especially the "quote farm" one. I've added some text from subject areas involved to help with context. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, this article is an application of a theory without specifically linking the theory with the subject the theory is to be applied on. In other words, I don't find the sources to truly support the article. I am also concerned about Original Research and Essayism. I don't feel that this article is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one, but ... These articles have to be seen in the context of the Wikiversity article dominant group; they essentially repeat the text of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group, with some specific additions. I think we'd do best to deal with this article first, and then seal with the similar ones accordingly, and, as User:Roscelese says, in accordance with any special features there. Personally, i think the best way to proceed would be with a rewritten article on Dominant Group. Since it's protected, this would have to be done in user space, and taken to deletion review as a sufficient revision to warrant another AfD on the general article. As wide a range of third-party sources specifically using the term in the meaning presented would be needed, not the ones such as Darwin from which the concept was ultimately derived. (Most of the items listed at the AfD were general uses in Wikipedia articles in the non-specific meaning of the phrase, as a group which in one or another way is dominant, not as a fixed term referring to a particular way of looking at things. I reserve judgment on whether this is possible until i see the proposed references. (the two cited, Travis in evolutionary biology and Millet in sociology, seem to be talking about rather different subjects--travis about a somewhat outmoded way of looking at evolution ("the era of seed-ferns" etc.) and Millet comparing contemporary social groupings. If there is a specific underlying general concept it would need articles discussing it in that light. Based on the degree of concept-stretching in the present and past articles, I have some doubt it will be possible, but I cannot rule out the possibility. Now, my reason for saying delete for this article is, quite simply, that none of the references talk about the concept specifically in art. Gramsci is talking about social roles in general, and I'd need to study his work in some detail to see how he uses the term--if it should be a major distinct concept of such an eminent thinker, it would be notable, but not about art specifically & still would not justify this article. The Jetten article is talking only about body ornament, not art--that tattoos are used for group identification is a specific subject, but probably not worth a separate article, but from the quotes i do not see the term being used in a specific meaning there, and, even if it were, it's not by itself enough to support the article. The material on art in India is talking about the role of art in group formation, and I do not think uses dominant group as a specific concept, and Kingsley's article does not appear to have been actually published. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, DGG. As noted above, I feel the article should be deleted (since the sources don't really support the specific, precise topic written). However, I agree with a re-writing of Dominant Group -- in fact, I had assumed there was an article already. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and voting! I did try another version of 'dominant group' with approximately 51% different text but the admin who deleted the first then deleted the second and protected it. Some of the concerns you've both raised I'm trying to work on at Dominant group, but apparently more needs to be done over here to increase understanding. Believe it or not each author is using the constituent phrase 'dominant group' as a specific concept. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the correct forum for requesting an undeletion of an article is Deletion Review. It *does* appear that there are some reliable, secondary sources on this "dominant group" theory. From the sources you've provided, I could nominally support an undeletion. However, I am just one editor amongst many and I do not represent but a wave in the ocean of consensus (I'm not sure why I just wrote that little comment, but the pithy remarks above inspired me.) Secondly, the article should be more concise and on-topic - no synthesis or original research. The article should reflect an encyclopaedic summary of what the theory is, who supports it, etc. The article should not, in my opinion, read like an essay. To emphasize, I write here only about the original "dominant group" article. I unfortunately still feel that all of the sub "dominant group" articles (i.e. "Dominant Group (art) and similar) should be deleted. Finally, I suggest finding a willing editor to help outline the topic in your userspace before trying to gain consensus to reintroduce "dominant group" to the article space. Regards - and I hope you find this helpful, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comment. Here's one you might like "But once this dominant group has been deposed, other producers take their place and can assert their hegemony, drawing away from consumers by a process of de-commodification." This is by Russell Keat, Nigel Whiteley, and Nicholas Abercrombie. Abercrombie is Professor of Sociology at Lancaster University, Keat is a Professor of Political Theory at Edinburgh University, and Whiteley is a Senior Lecturer in the department of Visual Arts at the University of Lancaster. I guess I am not alone in mixing art with sociology. Shall I insert another section in the article? What do you think. I also have no objections to collaboration, but my user space may be a little crowded. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, I still agree with DGG that Dominant group (art) should be deleted. I also agree that there may be some hope for Dominant group over at Deletion Review after the that article undergo a rigorous rewrite. Firstly, the article should read like an encylopedia entry. For ~~example~~ comparison, lets us take a peek at Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The first line reads: "The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 <snip> was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government..." Ok. That's a nice start. So, applying that sort of lead to Dominant Group might give us something along these lines: "Dominant group is a theory which...etc...etc...The theory, as explained by x attempts to do y." I think that style of writing might be palatable. As it stands now -and forgive me for being bold- the Dominant group (art) article reads a bit like an essay. Now, if you succeed in getting the main "Dominant group" article into the namespace (no small task, of course), then I believe the appropriate course of action would be to add the particular applications (like art) as subsections to that main article. Again I post the disclaimer that I am just one editor and I can not guarantee that our fellow editors would agree; further, I am far from literate in the workings of deletion review. Their practices/rules/etc are beyond my ken. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While 'dominant group' could be a theory of its own, it may be only a term or jargon that has become popular. As Knowles stated it may at times be synonymous with 'majority', at present it is best described by its metadefinition, which is not OR. Marshallsumter (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I've put a new introduction on the article. While I realize you may have better things to do with your time, your opinion would be valuable. Thanks in advance! Marshallsumter (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for much the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group: OR by SYNTH (in fact, by a collection of unrelated quotes which are not really relevant to the article topic). Indeed, a quick search suggests that there is no specific "dominant group theory of art" for this article to be about. -- 202.124.72.152 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It starts out sounding like a dictionary definition; WP is not a dictionary. Then its a collection of random topics. Glrx (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The material appears to be entirely synthesised original research, including the very idea that dominant group is a defined concept in art: thus the need for deletion rather than any possible rewrite. The latest intro by the sole author of the article highlights the fact that this very general term is used diversely in art (I can't see that it is a distinct concept in any domain - but that's another story...) and hence that it is not a recognised, specific concept. Any abstract adjective + abstract noun will generate a concept of a similar level (try it!) but we do not and should not have articles about flexible alternative, major result or even original idea (yes, that goes to Originality; by that token it would be fine if these dominant group links each redirected to their own appropriate version of Dominance - but for art, there apparently isn't one) although such phrases would frequently appear in books, journals etc. within any given intellectual domain, including in art and art theory. Of course, sometimes such apparently general phrases have very specific meanings - consider Main sequence in astronomy - but then we see that it is a very well defined term, and hence justifying the existence of the article. This is not the case for dominant group in art. Mozzy66 (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Exactly! See my remark above about "synthesis by Google"! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear synthesis. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis - and incoherent synthesis at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for essentially the same reason I said to delete Dominant group (Moon); the author is attempting to interpret the phrase as used in a variety of contexts, and does not even give a clear exposition of the synthesis. LadyofShalott 00:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:SYNTH --Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:SYNTH if there ever was one. I also agree with DGG that the proliferation of cookie-cutter articles after the original was deleted as failing Wikipedia WP:OR policies is troublesome. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 19:56, 4 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.