Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mulatto supremacism


 * 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. clear consensus of everyone who is not a SPA DGG (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mulatto supremacism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced, non-notable, little used term, possible "crystal ball" entry. Prod declined, with some edits. Borders on a rant, with bizarre references to "scientism" (and, in an earlier edit, jews). Hairhorn (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, bordering on speedy as attack page. Any sourced material could go in the Mulatto article. Quantpole (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced original research, unsupported by reliable sources. TN X Man  20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is just getting stranger with age and more edits, the newer version references the work of race scientist J. Philippe Rushton. This looks more and more like a crank entry. Hairhorn (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. What a mess--unclear, unverified, unorganized. For our present purposes: I am not convinced that the concept even really exists, thus, delete for non-notability. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Save. How in the world can this Not be a notable subject? Antagonistic motivation evident - Looking for reason - shifts to a second reason, "thus, delete for".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frunobulac (talk • contribs) 09:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Save. The fact that the concept can't be found in a traditional encyclopedia doesn't mean it is unjustified to have it here. Wikipedia is the most progressive source of knowledge and this article should be saved for futher development and improvment. --JansonParker (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) — JansonParker (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sorry, but how do you explain racist bunk entries like this?


 * Mulatto supremacism is likely to be at least as great a hazard (3) to (e.g.) ethno-Europeans (list of countries by birthrate) as liberal-left elitism has been, as it stems from a longer evolved element (Bushmen) than has liberal-left elitism (elitism through use and abuse of the theories of e.g., Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Herbert Marcuse). (4)


 * Mulatto supremacism hence, is a hazard to cultural diversity, genetic diversity and biodiversity;


 * ... thankfully since edited out by other users. Hairhorn (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hairhorn, I know I really shouldn't edit these articles while they're under discussion when I think there's no improving them. In fact, removing that sort of racist nonsense might even lessen the chance of the article being deleted. However, that particular statement is so repulsive (besides, of course, being untrue and unverified) that it gives Wikipedia a bad name and embarrasses me. Oh, Frunobulac, you really shouldn't cast stones about rhetoric when you obviously (judging from your article) live in a very fragile glass house. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree entirely that this should have been removed as fast as possible. Hairhorn (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:frunobulac

Ad hominem. Your antagonism has already been noted. Deletion of this article would only serve to illustrate the bias of those who wish to remove it. I don't claim that it cannot be improved or should not be revised as an article (You have deleted the above material, and I did not protest) but to say that the subject is not notable is absurd.

Deletion is much more like racism or the death penalty; you will never hear the other side of the argument. So why are you, Drmies, using these terms as weapons against knowledge and information? --JansonParker (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Harihorn, please, ask Wikipedia to check the IPs and make sure that you are as biased to different voices as you are to this article. Good luck! --JansonParker (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the sockpuppet comment I made. However, please note than an account whose first post is in an AfD page is considered suspicious at best. Meatpuppetry also frowned upon. Hairhorn (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

talk) I did not know who the supporter of this article was, but thanked him for his comments and asked him to correct his grammar by adding an article "the". I didn't know that you were capable and willing to spy on such a "horrible" issue. It seems that you have friends on your side...they appear to be afraid of the term, mulatto supremacism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frunobulac (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember to sign your comments, so I can be clear on who is who. Hairhorn (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Frunobulac, what are you talking about? "Horrible" issue? Surely you agree that the propagation of racist theory by means of false information is really horrible. JansonParker, go on throwing around your conspiracy theories (..."friends on your side..."). You don't seem to understand that in this debate we are hearing the "other side"--courtesy of you and Frunobulac. Unfortunately, neither of you have said anything worthwhile that relates the supposed notability of this made-up term (or at the very least misapplied term) to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a noticeboard. There is no free speech issue here. There is no conspiracy. And there is no such concept as "mulatto supremacism." Both of you could benefit from a healthy dose of looking at other articles to see a. how they are written and organized and b. what kinds of standards are at work here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and inform another secret society of "friends" about this issue here. Freemasons? Elks? You'll never know... Drmies (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, I see nothing salvageable here. The entry is incoherent, poorly sourced, and of questionable Verifiability.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 08:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Save

Dear Sirs/Ladies

'''Why do you hurl these chlche's at us? And why do you lie?'''

''Frunobulac, what are you talking about? "Horrible" issue?   "Horrible issue" was a remark that I made in response to its being alleged that I was meatpuppeting with Janson/Parkere when in reality, I asked him to add the article "the" to correct grammar in one spot.'  You seem to be full of notions derived of upper class parents and the scholarships that others are not insider enough to be granted.'''  You don't want me to have friends, but obviously, you do.'''

Surely you agree that the propagation of racist theory by means of false information is really horrible.

'''There is nothing racist and horrible in what I've said and nothing false (nor in the parts you've deleted), either. You know it. What you are doing is evil - and I mean in a real sense, that it does not give the quality of people a chance to respond and live, as opposed to the religious or new age nonsense to which you subscribe.'''

JansonParker, go on throwing around your conspiracy theories (..."friends on your side..."). '''It was I, Frunobulac, who said that you have friends on your side. Why do you spew cliche's, as if I/We believe in conspiracy theories? Your meat puppetry was/is evident.'''

You don't seem to understand that in this debate we are hearing the "other side"--courtesy of you and Frunobulac. Unfortunately, neither of you have said anything worthwhile that relates the supposed notability of this made-up term (or at the very least misapplied term) to Wikipedia policy.

'''I did not make up the term, although I first used it in 1987, spontaneously, as it is a rather obvious consequence of your kind of hatred; and shortly thereafter, heard it echoed in application to Dubois and his rigid Hegelianism. Mulatto Supremacism is not only a term which you have heard, but is a practice in which you partake.'''

Wikipedia is not a noticeboard. ''' Therefore, do not treat it as a message board. Write in accordance with wiki's professional standards.'''

There is no free speech issue here.

'''There certainly is. That is abundantly clear; with proposed laws in Europe, for example, being coerced into alignment with Sharia; and laws being passed in North America attempting to enjoin any speech useful in the defense of ethno-Europeans. ''' There is no conspiracy.

'''Actually, there is, though that is not the word nor the issue that I am taking up. As noted, you were discussing this with friends. I would not have phrased that a conspiracy, but it is similar. Tell me, why do you want to use the term "White Supremacism" and why do I not even have to guess that you want to use it?'''

And there is no such concept as "mulatto supremacism."

Of course there is, and no academic that I've ever ran the notion before ever batted an eye - more or less had the attitude that it was about time it was given more attention.

Both of you could benefit from a healthy dose of looking at other articles to see a how they are written and organized and b. what kinds of standards are at work here.

Of course I have looked at many other articles and while the standards of English and organization are fair, the theoretical underpinnings should be better.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and inform another secret society of "friends" about this issue here.

Nice try; you have hidden behind cliches to attack progress in wikipedia standards and I will inform my colleagues of your camouflage and ambush tactics (your friends are Scottish? you don't like hazel nut coffee?, want guns (for what?), war?, whatever other cliche's you can think of. 

Freemasons? Elks? You'll never know... Drmies (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

 Wikipedia is not a message board. So do not treat it as one. Unskilled interlocutors such as you are a most regrettable thing; as one cannot even learn from arrogance such as you've displayed. "Freemasons, Elks" I should not have to spend time instructing you that I am not a member of these groups. You might never know what you have done to true outsiders. I should not have to be bothered defending against personal accusations.'''--Frunobulac (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)--Frunobulac (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)---Frunobulac (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)-Frunobulac ([[User
 * Well, you got that last part right: WP is not a message board--certainly not for incoherent, ungrammatical, and incorrectly formatted ramblings. I'm sure that shoe doesn't fit you. Since you said it best, "Write in accordance with wiki's professional standards," I assume you won't mind a few elementary corrections: leaving a space at the beginning of a sentence makes a box, which is one reason why your response looks so weird. I'll leave you your bold print, since you feel the need to shout. Let it all out! As for one of your remarks, "You don't want me to have friends," I'm sorry if you feel that way and it made me very sad to see you say that. I do want you to have friends (and I'm sure Jason feels the same way), and anytime you want to talk, I'm here for you. Drmies (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2009 (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.