Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial disappearance (2nd nomination)


 * 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. concerns about policy wasn't met in this AFD Secret account 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Racial disappearance
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is hopelessly, irredeemably biased. The term 'racial disappearance' is only used by racists; it's impossible to write a neutral article on the subject. Currently, this article has virtually no reliable sources, and all the sources are either to racists themselves, or trivial mentions. If significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources cannot be found, it should be deleted. A previous AfD on this article ended in 'no consensus', and it's only got worse since then. Robofish (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Numerous books use the term for example. The fact that it is a term used by racists makes it relevant in the context of racism and racist culture. The article is in an embarrasing biased state, but this can be solved by editing, not deletion, as policy requires. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, there are some reliable sources that use the term - but where are the reliable sources about the term? Those Google Books links aren't acceptable as references; an article on a phrase needs sources that discuss it, not just citations of its use. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it is the most used name about the concept, or if indeed there is a general accepted name for the concept. But that the concept exists and is notable is quite sure to me. I'll look into it. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with nominator that this article is highly problematic on various levels. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ATD is policy. Being problematic does not allow deletion. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Miscegenation, assuming there's anything left of the article after NPOV and OR issues have been resolved (otherwise delete). The sources provided in the article do not establish notability.    talk 02:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the articles on Semiticization and Nordic race use the term "dilution", and this may be a better or more commonly used word, if article is kept. these are also good models for how to tackle the subject. i do agree that this article is pretty much unsalvageable as it exists. i think its possible to write a section about this idea in some manner, mostly about its use by racists and its having no significance among anthropologists. probably adding to miscegenation makes sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cyclopia. Nom is heavily biased.--Ratbones (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not an accepted term except by the most extreme fringes of sociology and is unsupported by any reasonable sources in Google scholar. Unless and until it is accepted as mainstream terminology, it's a combination of WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and should be consigned to the dustbin since the term seems to be being used as a WP:COATRACK  to advance a position.  Rodhull  andemu  00:52, 8 December 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.