Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial transformation


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Prisencolin (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Racial transformation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

possibly fails WP:GNG, seems redundant or a WP:POVFORK Prisencolin (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I find the above nomination rationale to be incomprehensible. The article has five references, all of which look reliable on a cursory examination - and the nominator does not say what they regard the article as being redundant to or a WP:POVFORK of. The article does have problems, but I do not see that any of them would be improved by deletion. The references make it clear that the article title is certainly sometimes (though not always) used with the meaning given here, and while the article as it stands is clearly a slightly vague WP:DICDEF, the topic certainly looks encyclopedic - I see no reason why the article can not be suitably expanded, and I can not immediately find another article on the same, or even closely related, topic. Another problem certainly would not be improved by deletion: until an editor's apparently unilateral decision in February 2014, the article at this title was the one now at Racial transformation (individual), which itself was created by another editor copying and pasting the previous text from this article to the new one in June 2014. Thus simply deleting the article would effectively remove the earlier part of the latter's edit history. In fact, unless the nominator cares to clarify their reasoning, there would, I think there would be grounds for a speedy keep. PWilkinson (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nom, but the article is probably redirected or at least effort given to expand the current content.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2016 (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.