Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial disappearance


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Racial disappearance

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

This article is a potentially notable topic, but it's not written from a neutral point of view and the sourcing is poor. -Close (to the Edit) (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I know this is not the usual way handling AFDs but I felt it was needed here. The article was radically changed during the AFD, thus almost all !votes here were for an article which does not exist anymore, at least not in this way. I thus decided to relist the AFD and put all !votes that commented on the previous version of the article in the box below. Possibly further discussion can reach consensus whether the now-existing stub should be deleted or kept. Regards  So Why  15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - an important encyclopedic subject that people need to be aware of. Sources are fine. And if you think these sources are not good enough, I can provide many more.--Ratbones (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please provide more? The two currently on the article appear to be questionable sources, and I'm not sure if WP:FRINGE should apply or not. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

*Weak Keep --very weak keep for this start at  much disputed topic. At the very least should refer fully to the other WP articles discussing this. DGG (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. POV is not grounds for deletion, but is grounds for improvement. I think this is an important subject but the article as written has a lot of room for improvement, particularly in the way of WP:RS. If the author can come up with more RS I may change my position to firm keep. KuyaBriBri Talk 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article should be made NPOV--H8erade (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could stand some improvement, and perhaps there is a more common term that this can be moved to -- but it's a very real concern for ethnic groups whose numbers are declining, and a topic of debate in Judaism (worldwide .  Population decline is an article here, but it refers to the world's nations.  The term "racial disappearance" doesn't get many hits, but that only means that this can be moved to a more likely title.  Mandsford (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - AfD is not cleanup. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Upon rereading the article, I've changed my mind. The unsuitable nature of the article in shown most clearly by its repeatedly using the term "miscegenation" It's not just a question of replacing the term-- the degree of cleanup needed is impractical. Much better to start over. Ethic groups change by two mechanisms: replacement and assimilation, as this is discussed in the modern anthropological literature. Unfortunately, it is also discussed in the older anthropological and racist literature in a misleading way.DGG (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no valid rationale given for deletion. The complaints require cleanup, not deletion. Topic seems notable, requires NPOV editing and sourcing, but deletion is not called for in this case, and should have been tagged for cleanup, not brought to AFD.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to vote keep but decided to do a quick search on Google scholar, which makes it abundantly clear that this term simply doesn't exist in the scholarly literature and as such is a an WP:OR neologism. The content could be ported over to another title, but the content is idiosyncratic and not substantiated by reference to the standard literature. Wikipedia reflects, not creates, the state of knowledge. Eusebeus (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Eusebeus is completely correct, this is OR. And the only two references given are not exactly RS either. --Crusio (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete how do you salvage an article with sentences like "Political parties such as the British National Party have stopping racial disappearance as one of their objectives, although since social democracy is a euphemism for totalitarianism, such parties have little chance of gaining significant power, and indeed often face ostracization from the mainstream media and other political parties in their own countries."? I'm all for giving an article a chance but this ought to be speedied, such racist garbage could bring Wikipedia into disrepute. WP:IAR should apply, if nothing else. 140.247.249.78 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator's rationale sums the situation pretty well.  It may be possible to write an encyclopedic article on the subject of the dimunition and disappearance of races due to immigration and miscegenation, but this article is a FRINGE ESSAY.  Ordinarily I would argue for keeping the article and re-writing it, but when you remove the non-encylopedic content from this article (as I have done), you are left with nothing but a NEOLOGISM.  To make a truly clean start you'd have to rename the article, come up with a different definition of its topic, and re-write and source it from the ground up.  There's no foundation to build on; better to delete the article and start from scratch.  Baileypalblue (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, someone will write a good article, because it seems like a worthwhile topic that hasn't been covered. Even if the page is deleted (and it's hard to disagree with the problems with this article), I hope that someone will take up the cause. Mandsford (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unfortunately I don't feel qualified to write such an article, it looks like it could be an interesting project.  Baileypalblue (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The topic is definitely notable but the article would essentially need a complete re-write to get past the POV issues etc. Best to delete it as is and hopefully a more experienced editor will create it anew in future.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete unless someone is willing to rewrite the article in a neutral and expanded form. This is certainly a notable subject, although not necessarily a notable term -- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So  Why  15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment The racist gibberish that was this article has been expunged to leave a stub which states: Racial disappearance is the term used for when an ethnic group or race peacefully and bloodlessly disappears through a combination of immigration by other groups to their homeland, and miscegenation by that group as well as a declining birth rate amongst those people. I reiterate though that google scholar has never heard of such a term. This should not have been relisted; it should be deleted as a pseudo-academic neologism. Eusebeus (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Eusebeus and stick to my previous delete !vote. It's a neologism and even if I do some "OR", I don't see any value in a concept of "racial disappearance": which race has ever disappeared? Some ethnic groups have been absorbed by others, of course, but as far as I see "ethnic disappearance" is as deserving of an article as "racial disappearance", which is not at all. This should not have been relisted but simply deleted. --Crusio (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Miscegenation. I was previously on the "weak keep" side, but at this point there isn't enough material or sourcing to justify a standalone article. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not a neologism, and I've added examples of the word being used in serious sociological texts to the article to show that it's a term that is used in sociological literature, and could be expanded to full-article form.—AfD doesn't determine whether to keep the existing article content; the purpose of AfD is to decide if Wikipedia should have an article with this title.—I also want to applaud SoWhy for his creative but appropriate approach to this AfD.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThanks for those references. Perhaps you'll want to revisit your vote once you've had a moment to actually look at them... --Crusio (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I strongly disagree that the "sources" demonstrate the existence of this term as a scholarly idea that exists in the intellectual currency of sociological thought. S Marshal seem to have searched through google books and cherry-picked the incidental use of the word racial adjectivally linked to disappearance; this constitutes the existence of a sociological term? That's ridiculous and having this kind of article brings wikipedia into disrepute as a hotbed of OR and neologisms. Eusebeus (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed.—Are these not sociological texts? Do they not employ the phrase "racial disappearance" to mean what the stub says it means?  And if they are sociological texts that use the phrase to mean what the stub says they mean, then isn't the matter verified from reliable sources?
 * I can't agree that the question of which race has ever disappeared? invalidates the concept. We haven't observed any universes exploding, but that doesn't mean the Big Bang is an invalid concept and should be deleted from Wikipedia.
 * I do think you could make a credible argument that "racial disappearance" isn't a notable term that merits a separate article, but I also think the idea that it doesn't exist at all, or is somehow an "invalid concept", fails in the face of sources that mention it. Wikipedia doesn't evaluate truth, it evaluates sources.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The comparison with the Big Bang is invalid: there's plenty of evidence that a Big Bang actually happened. Apart from that, I agree with you that it does not actually matter whether the phenomenon exists or not (so let's abandon that discussion), only whether the concept has notability. I agree with Eusebeus that your sources don't establish "racial disappearance" as a concept that is or has been being used in sociology. Let's look at your sources in more detail: we have three books, each of which has the words "racial disappearance" appear together exactly once. One of the books does so while discussing a fictional account. The next sasy (to cite the whole single phrase in the whole book using this expression): "The issue of racial disappearance has been a staple of alarmist rhetoric across the twentieth century." That leaves only the third book that uses the term in anything like the sense that would be intended in this article. One phrase in one single book does not really amount to notability to me (not even three phrases in three books, if someone would insist on counting all three). --Crusio (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I could find more such sources if that would help; I stopped after three feeling that a higher number wouldn't add force to the argument.
 * Stipulating for the moment that, in using it to discuss a fictional account, the passage in America's Asia: Racial Form and American Literature is acknowledging there is no such concept in currency—which I don't agree with, by the way, but I'm prepared to stipulate it for the moment—we're left with the passage in Blackness and Sexualities and the passage in The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. Blackness and Sexualities does say it's "a staple of alarmist rhetoric", but my point is that in doing so, it's acknowledging that the concept exists in the form described in the stub.
 * By analogy, Wikipedia appropriately has an article about Bigfoot. A widely-disparaged concept is still a concept, and the disparagement adds to its notability.
 * I think we agree that the third source uses the term exactly as described.
 * I'd agree that the idea that the juxtaposition of "racial" and "disappearance" was partly coincidental, but isn't that how memetics works?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bigfoot myth" = 3700 returns on google scholar. This = 11. So we have an article on Bigfoot because it exists. 11 responses from google scholar on a supposedly bonafide term in sociological thought? C'mon, that's obviously crossing the line with WP:V. What is your interest in promoting stuff that simply reinforces Wikipedia's bad reputation as a reliable source of information while at the same time you obviously care enough about to participate here? I am mystified. Eusebeus (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point regarding insufficient sources, but I don't think S Marshall's motives are relevant to this discussion. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was merely rhetorical. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the logical fallacy there, I'm left with what appears to be an argument based on WP:GHITS. To which the answer is, WP:V is a binary thing.   Either there's a published, reliable source or there isn't.
 * If this were a hugely long article then its treatment would be out of proportion to its significance, per WP:UNDUE, because we have a low number of sources and their reliability is in question (no matter how unjustly so). But because this is a short stub that doesn't overemphasize the importance of the concept, I don't see valid grounds to delete.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I do agree that we shouldn't misrepresent this as a widely-accepted concept. I've tweaked the article accordingly—does the new version come closer to addressing your concerns?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a non notable term and an article that seems beyond a rewrite. If the subject is notable, start from scatch. --Stormbay (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't delete articles on notable subjects just because we think they are of poor quality. -- Explodicle (T/C) 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable topic, rather poor article. Needs expansion, and rewriting for POV.  The article's POV is obvious from using "miscegenation" instead of "intermarriage" or some other less loaded term. Not necessarily pseudo-socialscience--treating it as such is Political Correctness run amok.  I think a long article would be appropriate for its significance.  Probably hundreds of findable references--the exacttitle for the article can be discussed subsequently.    DGG (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. I have replaced the reference to "miscegenation" with one to "interracial marriage". --H8erade (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems a valid concept; see here. TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as it seems to be barely notable concept in sociology. The name can use some reworking, but I can't offer any suggestions as I'm not a sociologist. A stub should suffice for now to prevent it from getting out of hand with original research and synthesis. We have to watch out so that we don't accidently create a "truth" which doesn't already exist.  Them  From  Space  00:15, 30 March 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.