Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiracial people


 * 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. Closing a little early as the consensus is already evident and the continued presence of this article is rather odorous. kingboyk 13:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An earlier version of this article was deleted in 2003, before the AfD system was established.

List of multiracial people

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is offensive, has no place on wikipedia, has no value as a resource, and could contain a plethoric amount of names.
 * I agree that this is offensive, not to mention, inaccurate. Among other things, I find it offensive that so many entries list "Jewish" as a nationality when, in fact, it is a religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.229.5 (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Far too broad list to be sustainable as an article. Also big problems with defining what is "multiracial" such as (as suggested above) is "Jewish" a race, or a religion, or both? Jules1975 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a bad idea, for the reasons suggested above. Grouse 14:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as muddled, inherently POV ridden crap. I'm sure this list would have been a valuable resource in 1900 Alabama, where so much as a single drop of non-"white" blood made you 100% non-white, but I can't imagine any encyclopedic reason for this.  RGTraynor 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: This would include most of the United States. What defines someone who is "multiracial" -- The color of their skin? Ethnicity? Religion? Wherever the line is drawn in the sand, this is not a suitable article as it is unmanageable and far too POV.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely subjective criteria, inherently POV, and all around a bad idea. Krimpet 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep fits the purposes described in WP:LIST, nominator offers no valid reason for deletion. WilyD 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as being subjective and too susceptible to POV. The list refers to multiracial to define its inclusion criteria, and the lead paragraph of that article states "It is sometimes a matter of opinion if people are mixed-race, because races themselves are not clearly defined. This has caused some problems for census-takers."  The subjective/POV nature of the definition has caused problems for census-takers and if this list is allowed to stay, will casue problems for Wikipedia editors, too.  Arkyan 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete the scope is far too broad. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I am multi-racial too. I think that VERY few people are uni-racial, and the criteria for being multiracial is to have a "source" say you are? What? User: gadavis 20:24 7 March 2007 (utc)
 * Delete per Jules1975, RGTraynor, Krimpet, Arkyan and brighterorange. Way more problematic than "valuable" (cf. WP:LIST purpose 1). Punkmorten 09:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. this article is very valuble, and i have used it as a source many times. a source that someone is multiracial is something like this. therefore, it is not too broad because the wikipedians are not the one's deciding who is on this list. it is the multiracial people themselves. i find it very offensive that someone would want to delete this list. in my opinion, it is the very best article on wikipedia, and i'm crying to see it go. Colorfulharp233 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete impossible to determine that someone is not of mixed race. Tracing your parents, grandparents etc back through 15 generations gives you over 60,000 direct ancestors.  Like to bet that they're all the same race as you? Tt 225 00:19, 9 March 2007 (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.