Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiracial American


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiracial American

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no external documentation suggesting "multiracial American" is anything more than a terminology, which can be and is aptly covered in Multiracial. The topic of Multiracial-ism is notable (which is why we have multiracial, Miscegenation, etc...), but it is not an ethnic group or a "uniform collection of people" of the United States. The only times "Multiracial American" shows up on a google search is when an individual writes about their "life" coming from a "multiracial" background (notice the quotes), or in the context of the word Multiracial American Indian. This article is already a quote farm, poorly recapitulating what most of the main articles say. The vast majority of content in this article is just scrapped from the header articles Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States and Interracial marriage in the United States, so I'm not seeing much to merge. Note that Eurasian American redirects to Eurasian (mixed ancestry), which is what this article should do. Bull dog123 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Possible Keep I don't like the title very much either, but the general topic of mixed-race people in the United States is certainly an important one and probably WP "notable" too. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but why can't it be covered in Multiracial (and the other articles) in the same way Eurasian (mixed ancestry) does for Eurasian American? If you read the content, it's not different, just forked and expanded with a lot of WP:OR. Bull dog123  15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, though recognizing its current flaws. To frame the discussion, complaints about the term "Multiracial American" seem to me overly caught up on form over substance; maybe the article should be titled Multiracial people in the United States, as that seems to be what the subject is, most generally stated.  Given that there's not actually a claim by the nom that this isn't a valid topic, it seems that the only question that remains is whether the subtopic of multiracial people in the United States is substantive enough to merit a split off from Multiracial.  On that question, I have a hard time believing that the parent topic can handle full coverage for the entire world, particularly for a country like the U.S., where race has been such an important issue.  Same goes for Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States; the topic is larger than what that can incorporate given its scope. I agree that the quotes need to be trimmed and/or summarized, but I'm not sure what the nom claims is OR in this article, and I'm not sure whether there is anything else here other than cleanup/article talk page issues which are not AFD problems.  That it intersects with a number of other articles is not a reason for it not existing, particularly since none of those could cover this topic in full: interracial marriage in the U.S. is obviously related to multiracial people in the U.S., but a full discussion of the legal, cultural, and historical experience of the people who are the offspring and descendants of such unions (not all of which were marriages, obviously) is outside the scope of that article, just as the topic of multiracialism in the U.S. is broader than any one article on a particular race/ethnicity in the United States.  postdlf (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep meets every requirement in WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is potentially a significant article, so it should be forked out. Many articles intersect with one another, often complimenting each other.  I have the feeling that the outcomes have varied primarily on the sourceability of said article, and whether it is a content fork with a radically different point of view.  I don't see how this can't be fixed in the ordinary editing process and kept fixed with a few dozen eyes on their watchlists.  A move per Postdlf is in order. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - When I first saw this, my reaction was delete since the topic seemed somewhat synthetic and lacking in notability. I mean, sure there are certainly some notable multiracial Americans, but is the intersection of "multiracial" and "American" itself notable?  Have a considerable number of books been written that focus solely on the subject of multiracial people in America?  After considering a little more deeply, I'm a little cautious to explicitly suggest we delete the article now.  If for nothing else than for the fact that have pages dedicated to Indian Americans, Russian Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, etc, etc.....  Excluding a "multiracial" category could easily be perceived as bias.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of notable multiracial Americans is beside the point, as this isn't a list. The article's topic is the concept, the identity itself.  "Have a considerable number of books been written that focus solely on the subject of multiracial people in America"?  Yes.  Many books appear in the search here for "mixed race" + "United States", for example.  multiracial+"United States" also produces a number of relevant hits (though more false hits, as "multiracial" is also used to mean a racially diverse group rather than an individual of racially diverse background).  A lot (if not most) of the positive hits are from university presses; I'm sure if we dug into scholarly journals we'd find a lot more, as this has been a vital topic in American academics for decades.  The issue has always been a relevant one because there have always been consequences for belonging to one race or another: legal at first, but even today, social and cultural, and recent history has seen the analysis and study of multiracial as itself a distinct identity.  Multiracialism in the United States is a highly notable topic in American history, and a highly notable topic in contemporary sociology, race studies, media analysis, etc.  postdlf (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. How does multiracial not cover all that? Are you going to argue that we need Eurasian American too because there are so many books on the subjects of individuals growing up with an Asian father/mother and White mother/father? Seems a bit... silly and overextensive. There are far less books on the subject than you're suggesting. I can only find two and both are about individuals in your google books link, and I can't find a single source that refers to "Multiracial" as an American ethnic group. If you are proposing a keep so vehemently, can you at least work on the talk page to get stuff like the infobox and mentions of "multiracial" as a uniform group of individuals removed? Bull dog123  20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a look at that talk page discussion and it didn't really develop very far, so I'm not seeing much to respond to. I agree that multiracial is not a singular "ethnic group", obviously, at least as I would use that term, but I don't know what consequence you think that should have for the article content nor do I understand the way in which those ostensibly disagreeing with you there believed that it was an ethnic group.  I might say it's a "racial classification," but beyond semantics, what's the difference?  Whether it is or isn't an "ethnic group" certainly has no impact on whether the article should be deleted.  The only real point I can make right now is that the topic of multiracial people in the U.S. is broader than just the census classification, so the article should not be arranged such that it appears the census classification defines it or provides a "complete count". One broader point: this kind of article is one of the most difficult for Wikipedia to handle, for a number of reasons: 1) race is an emotionally volatile issue; 2) most Wikipedians' interests and backgrounds lean away from the humanities/social sciences; 3) racial studies have gone through a lot of change in the past few decades that it's still contentious even for university curricula, let alone volunteer editors, to determine what's essential to the subject or what defines it.  There's a germ of a decent outline in the article, so there's hope.  And that the article admittedly has a long way to go is by no means grounds for deletion when there's a valid, notable topic and, at minimum, a not-awful start.  postdlf (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant: will you work toward fixing the article on the talk page if this article is kept? A lot of times people just come to AfD, vote !keep, and the article continues to languish in its miserable state (e.g. List of Jewish actors, List of black Golden Globe winners and Massacre). I went to the talk page to do a WP:BEFORE and got almost no responses, besides a few requests that AfD is a better venue for this than the talk page... so... clearly something is not working here... The consequences are big regarding this article's "ethnic group" status. An ethnic group is defined as: a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. This article is currently in the Template for ethnic groups, in a category for ethnic groups (Category:Ethnic groups in the United States, and maintains an ethnic group infobox (including the idiotic montage). All these things make it seem like "multiracial american" is some type of uniform group of people. If your rename idea goes through, it would definitely help improve that. However, I'd prefer if the rename did not concern "people" but the "concept". Turns out that Multiracialism is actually a word. One of its meanings is: composed of or involving multiple races . So even something like Multiracialism in the United States would be better. Still, I can't see what there is to salvage from this article. It's a huge quote farm. Bull dog123  00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted it, and if I feel I have something to contribute to a discussion at that talk page, I will. You can feel free to ping me if you would like my input on a thread there.  postdlf (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * keep for the more than adequate reasons offered by postdlf. This subject is part of any discussion of the evolving American society.  It can be improved, as can most articles in WP, but articles just needing improvement do not get deleted.  There is some other agenda going on here.  Hmains (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, do inform everyone of what you think that "other agenda" is. Bull dog123  05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is a hodgepodge about a purported ethnic group called "multiracial Americans". There is, in fact, no such ethnic group, which makes the very foundation of the article original research. As Bulldog suggested, Wikipedia could use an article about multiracialism in the United States, but this isn't likely to become it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep article subject, individuals who are of multiple races and american pass WP:GNG via mutliple reliable sources including major national newspapers, multiple accredited educational institutions, and a significantly notable percentage of the population of those who reside within the United States. The nature of the content of the article is debate-able and the consensus of the active editors will determine what is within the article, as well as said content following the general policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but the primary question of an AfD is whether the subject of an article is Notable. This subject is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with you on the last point per ITSNOTABLE. But, in any case, the subject of being multiracial in America is notable. However, I don't believe that the subject of Multiracial Americans (as uniform group of people) is. If you have multiple reliable sources in major newspapers and multiple accredited education institutions showing otherwise, it would be helpful to list them here. Bull dog123  03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A source such as Multiracial Americans and social class] demonstrates the notability of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article is clearly an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, Stats.Grok shows it consistently receives over 500 views per day. We have articles on individual episodes of The Simpsons, such as “Mayored to the Mob”, which, though it is also encyclopedic, is of interest to far fewer readers. We don’t build the project by deleting a whole class of articles that makes some editors uncomfortable (the nom has a track record of objecting to these articles). Nor do we delete articles that have have shortcomings; we improve them. Greg L (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm in accord with the over 80% of those who have commented so far that this is a keep.  Meets GNG, highly notable, encyclopedic.  RightCow put it quite well.  Some of the arguments in favor of deletion are reminiscent of the arguments that were debunked and rejected in the following quite recent nominations by the same nom as here (Bulldog), which all ended up keeps as well:
 * AfD for List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees,
 * CfD for African American artists,
 * CfD for American artists by ethnic or national origin,
 * CfD for American film directors by ethnic or national origin, and
 * CfD for American film directors by ethnic or national origin.

Not even a close call, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly rename). I supported a merge on White American, but I don't think this article raises the same WP:FORK issues that one does - we don't seem to have another article that covers this specific topic (multiracial and miscegenation are international, this one is specifically about the US). 'Multiracial American' may or may not constitute a coherent ethnic group, but there's clearly a notable topic here. If the name is problematic, I'd be open to renaming it to something like Mixed-race people in the United States or something similar, but I'm not convinced that's really necessary. Robofish (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is mostly just a quote farm. I don't see what parts of the article are at risk of being lost. I didn't put "Delete" in the rationale because a "merge" or "rename" could be in order. However, I don't see Mixed-race people in the United States as a verifiable topic. There are no external sources for such a "people," only for the concept of being mixed-race, which would lend itself to Multiracial and possibly Multiracialism in the United States. This article isn't that though. Bull dog123  03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; we gathered you’re not an admirer of the article given that you are the nom and creator of this AfD. The article is clearly not “mostly” a “quote farm”; at least not the version as I write this post. It has proper and sufficient quotes to adequately buttress a topic that is intrinsically more controversial than most. It seems a wise move by whoever was the shepherding author, who may have perceived the need to preemptively fend off allegations of wp:synth and wp:POV (criticisms you’ve been throwing about lately on the whole, broad subject of ethnic and racial classifications). Your arguments still don’t dissuade me from looking at this AfD any differently: it’s better to put the underweight premies in the incubator in the nursery rather than euthanize them in the maternity ward; that’s how volunteers build the project. And, thank you for your link to Quotations, which you curiously aliased as “quote farm”. Once again, I actually read your I made it BLUE so it must be TRUE-link. It doesn’t seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging (other than point out how the article is handling quotations properly). Please try to avoid WP:Feigning knowledge with inapplicable links. I find that to be the Wikipedia-equivalent of what engineers sometimes do in design-review meetings, where 68.656% of statistics cited by engineers are contemporaneously fabricated to feign expertise. Greg L (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * QUOTEFARM. Yup. Real difficult to scroll down and find that. Here's a blue link for you: Go troll somewhere else. Bull dog123  15:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You aliased your link to the entire guideline: WP:Quotations. I assume that was your intention. Like I wrote above, Once again, I actually read your linked guideline, and once again, it doesn’t seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging. There are only two “long” (more than a paragraph) quotes, this bit from a Supreme Court ruling and this one by Tiger Woods. Moreover, American legal rulings are not copyrighted and editors are free to use quotations of any length (and I can’t think of a more apt long quotation than one from the U.S. Supreme Court in this particular subject). Taking all quotations into consideration and ignoring the References section, the article is over 84% original content, which is hardly the “quote farms” Wikipedia has suffered from in the past. And, true to form, you once again engaged in a personal attack by accusing an editor offering their opinion and analysis here (me) of trolling. Trolling is “disrupt[ing] the usability of Wikipedia for its editors.”. This isn’t the proper venue to elaborate in any detail, but you’ve been warned about this sort of thing before and this latest accusation is without foundation. When other editors point out something on a matter of Wikipedia business pertaining to content on the project and you disagree someone’s opinion, such as how your cited objection over “quote farm” takes the reader to the entire guideline, and that they read the guideline, and they opine that they don’t see a problem, it is not appropriate conduct on Wikipedia to falsely accuse them of disruption. M‘kay? From hereon on this page—and everywhere else on Wikipedia where you might land—please try to keep your comments focused on the subject at hand and do not personally attack those who disagree with you. Nor should you taunt and bait them. All that sort of behavior is prohibited and is incompatible with a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, save this material for your blog and go troll somewhere else. Bull dog123  20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is of importance because it deals with the issue that effects people who have a bi/multiracial background. It hits on kkey issues that effects how Americans self-identify or feel pressured to self-identify with certain ethnic groups. The article is encyclopedic and goes over how American society has evolved and how the dark history of the United States has influenced how people self-identify in the past and how it is changing at a rapid rate. Remove the article would harm wikipedia's diversity and seems biased.Mcelite (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2011 (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.