Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Racial Contract


 * 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. Significant coverage (6 academic reviews from JSTOR) has been added since nomination was made and article has also been improved through the removal of original research. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Racial Contract

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Marked as original research 3 years ago, still not rectified Nick012000 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Discussion in the article that is not referenced to independent sources (i.e. most of it) needs to be removed. However the question here should be - is the book notable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * keep though bordering on WP:TNT. It's hard to tell in what we have which parts are Mills's ideas being recounted without citations, and which parts are the musings of the editor. That said, GScholar shows plenty of refs to this book and its ideas. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I removed several acres of OR, reducing a personal ESSAY to a stub. Article as it stands is based on citations to the book. However, iVoting keep because the book did get reviewed in academic journals. As it stands, the most I can say for it is that it is no longer an embarrassment to the project.  Perhaps someone will turn it into a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Added six academic reviews from JSTOR, which should be sufficient for significant coverage. If anyone wants more book reviews, let me know and I can dig deeper. czar  19:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kudos to czar  for the WP:HEYMANN sourcing to multiple academic book reviews I was too lazy to do. A decent article can be created from those reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources now demonstrate GNG. I took a class last year on the philosophy of race, and was given to understand that this is an extraordinarily influential work in contemporary race theory, an impression confirmed by the book's >2700 (!) citations according to Google Scholar. FourViolas (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2017 (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.