- 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)[reply]
Racial disappearance
- Racial disappearance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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)[reply]
- 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 SoWhy 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments prior to change to stub.
|
---|
|
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- "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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. I have replaced the reference to "miscegenation" with one to "interracial marriage". --H8erade (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems a valid concept; see here. TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. ThemFromSpace 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.