Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial Boundaries


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Racial Boundaries

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

WP:ESSAY. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Great essay I'm sure, but not encyclopedia material. --DAJF (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like a sociology essay.  Regardless of how truthful the information in the article may be, the article is not an encyclopedic topic.  There is no real notability, no matter how much the phrase is used, Wikipedia does not need an essay explaining this term, as it is not an encyclopedic topic.  Theseeker4 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The text has some fairly serious problems, mostly because it is a polemical essay rather than an encyclopedia article in its current form.  But the concept of a racial boundary is widely discussed in academic sources -- Google Scholar gives a whopping 6,000 hits -- and the instant text could be rewritten to make a proper article about it.  If kept, move to racial boundary as standard usage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think anything sufficiently general (i.e., not details picked for a particular purpose, resulting in what amounts to an essay) could be said that isn't or wouldn't be covered by Racial_prejudice? I'm not sure it's a separate topic, leaving concern about WP:FORK. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so. We have a fairly extensive article on glass ceiling, which by my understanding is a metaphor for a similar idea, but usually invoked in the context of sexism rather than racism.  That article couldn't be merged into sexism without discomfort.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like it has sources that talk about "racial boundary" so it doesn't fail our "original research" policy. It might have originally been somebody's college thesis though; it was uploaded as a single edit. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is covered in the Discrimination collection of articles. New content should be fitted in there. --John Nagle (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though it may not be "original research", it's certainly "original synthesis", and it's unavoidably someone's point of view WP:NPOV.  The central thesis of what looks like someone's college essay is "Racial boundaries are widely used in the United States to keep certain races from achieving their full potential through political policies, social policies and family wealth."  The two sections are, in reality, two book reports, with "Wealth as a Racial Boundary" being drawn from a book by Thomas Shapiro, and "Mass Imprisonment as a Racial Boundary" coming from a book by Bruce Western.  My suggestion is that the author should merge this to the article Thomas Shapiro and to consider creating an article about [{Bruce Western]].  Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as it relates to the USA and not elsewhere, and it holds to unencyclopaedic and unscientific American views upon race.Red Hurley (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This reads like a term paper. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to say it. The article does look like an essay. I don't really believe that it contains any encyclopedic value whatsoever. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It may have been an essay at one point, but that's a reason to edit for encyclopedic tone, not to delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a reason to delete if there isn't any reason to think a valid article with the same name could exist and survive (e.g., in the face of merger proposals, etc.), or if there isn't any reason to expect that the article will be rewritten to conform any time soon. Otherwise the exhortation to people not to post essays is a vain one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2008 (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.