RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Race

Race | Result: the combined vote here and the talkpage is 8-3 for deletion or merging of useful content; there is no useful content, so.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) We already voted 5-2 to delete this (or merge anything salvageable; there was nothing salvageable. Since Weaseloid derides this as "a couple of user's say-so", AFD. 20:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) It makes no sense to declare biological race the hate fantasy that it is in the racialism article, while in the next breath leaving an entry named "race" standing. The whole race concept belongs under "racialism" (the pseudoscience) and "racism" (our perceptions and culture) respectively. An actual "race" article becomes oxymoronical in this context, and for good reason. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Race is not purely a biological concept, nor has it ever been. 17:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * *ding* That's correct, now for the lightening round! Being socially constructed is a far-cry from non-existent.  This would be like deleting the pornography article because you can't really scientifically define the concept.  It's silly.  There are plenty of people who draw arbitrary and unnecessary distinctions between "races" on non-scientific boundaries, including, but not limited to: skin color, national origin, religion, and language.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ikanreed: Will you vote accordingly? 18:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still making up my mind about some of the other arguments presented on either side. Hopefully I don't just forget entirely though.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One source for an article of this length, on this subject, looks like an Essay. Makes the whole project look preachy and unscientific, i.e., bad. Either source it, scrap it, or move to Essay. nobs 02:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * @Weasel I've said several times that my argument is not that race is "purely a biological concept" (race isn't even a biological concept at all, but I digest). Race perception is notably socially constructed (and is a product of racism). All I'm saying is, what's the point of keeping an article that literally categorizes people by racist labels? Have you looked at the single-sourced not-even-bronze article in question? Why does it say, for instance: "Caucasian is a classification term for describing a race of humans that are not black, Asian, Native American, or Pacific Islander.". That is actually racialism! Who wrote this thing, Mikemikev? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Barack Obama is never referred to as "white", regardless if its the female that carries the bloodline, and his mother is white. Someone? Anybody?Roo (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? 22:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All mitrochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring without recombination (unchanged), meaning if you want to trace Mr. Obama's lineage, he's white right from the get go. The bloodline is mitochondrial DNA. Patriarchal bloodlines are social constructs.Roo (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What about Y chromosomes, though? Worzelpete (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What does any of that have to do with this AfD discussion? 17:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The article, as it stands, seems to be unsure about the point it wants to make. It really needs to be either entirely re-written from a single coherent standpoint or eliminated.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) The article could do with improvement but this is a much broader subject than racialism & very much relevant to the site missions. 21:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I accept that. But right now, the article doesn't add anything. It's got 1 source. Read through it as if you're the average person, with a very limited exposure to scientific literature about race, and who usually sees race portrayed as ethnicity or skin color. Has your perspective changed? Have you learned anything? In my opinion, no. It would be better to eliminate the current content and start over than to repurpose what currently exists -- basically a combination of all the shitty uninformative articles we had on individual races, merged. 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep. Worzelpete (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that the essay article in question has one source. :/ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I vote keep. Applesauce (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Goat

 * The lack of sources is a clear problem. We could expand the sources by discussing the sociological aspect of race as well as briefly tying it up with our radicalism article.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree — in fact, my suggestion was that we do that in the Racism (perceptions/culture/oppression) and Racialism (pseudobiology) articles, respectively. That would eliminate the need for an actual article on race, considering we don't recognize the pseudoscientific race concept. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)