Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. sufficient consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Interracial
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There isn't a single acceptable entry on this so-called dab page. Three are partial matches, and the remaining two aren't even that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  03:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Why would a reader look in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary) for an adjective? Most people know that encyclopedia articles are always nouns, broadly construed. Obviously some people believe that some readers do look for adjectives like this, or they wouldn't create dab pages like this. How then can we best help that reader find whatever it is they're looking for? This dab page, PTMs and all, looks actually quite likely to be useful for that reader. Should it stay: WP:IAR? Does it do any harm (except to encourage the creation of more dab pages for adjectives, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Note that this article was Kept at AfD only 7 months ago: why bring it up again? I've improved it, by adding an in title link as a "See also", an asset to almost any dab page. Pam  D  10:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have a WP:SRD to the Wiktionary definition. WP:NOHARM is not a good reason to suffer its existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Determining whether an entry is a partial title match isn't about the exact structure of its article title. It is about determining whether the topic can be referred to by 'Interracial' alone. That's possible with the entries on this disambiguation page, because interracial is an adjective. (We can classify marriage as 'Interracial'.) We do have more adjectives as disambiguation pages, as mentioned at WP:NOUN. Furthermore, per PamD, this disambiguation page serves the reader by pointing to relevant Wikipedia articles. Redirecting such a common word to Wiktionary doesn't. We can't compare it with less common adjectives like Normoxic, which probably wouldn't survive RFD if is was a redirect to an article. LittleWink (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply. Marriage as interracial? That's a terrible example. (Does anyone ever say something like "John and Min are in a happy interracial"?) Lebron James is tall; that doesn't qualify him for Tall (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: these terms all have a common denominator, and if a noun for it existed ("interrace"?), nobody would likely object. But it's an adjective, which makes it weirder. I just don't think the "weird" should be a factor for deletion. LjL (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * *Suggestion. I think we can all agree that some sort of article should exist. I'm just saying this page isn't it. Start an article called Interracial issues or something like that to provide a central place to tie these things together. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * THE solution: Rename List of interracial issues (or topics). And lo, my monitor burneth and yet was not consumed. And a great voice issueth forth from the speakers and sayeth unto me: "My people hath forsaken the guidelines and worship false matches. Therefore, go ye among them, smite them upon the left and upon the right and upside the head with minnows until they see the error of their ways." Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like "issues". Wouldn't that imply those are intrinsically problematic things? LjL (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then "topics". That's surely neutral enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's oddly named, I'll give you that. But it seems to be a perfectly benign page.  Rename or rework it if you think it needs it. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.