Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of racial classifications


 * 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. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

List of racial classifications
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article is a work of original research, with no quality sources (which indeed would be difficult to find). It also promotes as valid a system of classifications grounded in scientific racism and which social scientists regard as obsolete. This is not a list of "classifications", or classification systems, but an attempt to divide the world into "races" and ascribes to each "race" dubious statistics such as "annual growth rate", "religions and philosophies", and "ages". Where is the methodology? Where are the sources? Is it possible to create a good article out of this? I don't think so. 192.12.88.145 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's not even properly named. I had imagined a "list of racial classifications" would include all the various racial classifications that have been proposed over time, not  a single list of a particular set of racial classifications and their assumed related characteristics. --Lquilter (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is unsourced original research. The population numbers in the article are derived by adding population numbers from other Wikipedia articles, which is WP:SYNTH and is also likely to lead to unreliable estimates as the methodology is dubious. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced, and probably original research. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is entirely unsourced, but seems to be based chiefly upon the work of Carleton S. Coon (see below).


 * •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:21, 15 September 2012 (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.