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. Though for the life of me I don't know why List of multiracial people has been around since 2003... Grandmasterka 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of interracial couples[edit]

Unreferenced list of people. With "race" being as difficult to define as it is (except in specific societies which categorize people by race, such as Apartheid South Africa or the Old U.S. South) how can we tell what an "interracial couple" is? Under what racial categories do "Alexander the Great and his wife Roxana of Persia" or "King Hussein of Jordan and (1) Princess Muna, (2) Queen Noor" belong exactly? up+l+and 23:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just a few questions: it seems unlikely that this will be kept at this point, but just in case it is, I would like some comments from those wishing to keep it. I have not found any policy page explaining which racial classification system is to be considered normative to use on Wikipedia, and I have some other issues as well.

• For instance, I always find myself stuck when trying to determine whether a person belongs to the Nordic race or the Alpine race, and I also frequently confuse people of the Alpine race with those of the Mediterranean race - could we please have some clear instructions? (I assume any couple with an Alpine partner and a Nordic one has to be included in this list.)
• Without good pictures, determining whether a persone is dolichocephalic or brachycephalic can be pretty difficult. Perhaps we could make sure we have a clear set of skull measurements in an infobox in each biography?
• And how are we going to do with people of African descent — I think "negroes" is the proper terminology, am I right? — are we going to use the one-drop rule? It does after all have a long tradition of established use. For instance, it has been reported in the Swedish press that new prime minister-elect Fredrik Reinfeldt has a great great grandfather who was a "mulatto from New York".[1] Does that make him a negro? Does it make his relationship with his wife Filippa an interracial one? Or do we first have to trace all her ancestors five generations back, to make sure she doesn't also have a similar amount of "negro" ancestry?

Well, there are many questions, but with the help of the enlightened users of Wikipedia, I'm sure this can all be figured out. up+l+and 05:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite part is "in fiction." Jane Austin never explicitly says that Elizabeth Bennet is white, you know. I have a feeling that was an interracial couple. Also, I don't recall Daniel Defoe saying that Robinson Crusoe was white. (The one drop rule should definitely apply, and then there will be no interracial couples, as everyone has a drop of everything.) Geogre 11:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They all fit in as being members of the human race. And with the (very) odd exception the only interracial couples in that sense are fictional. As it stands this is a strong POV risk and troll-bait, as well as serving no encyclopedic purpose. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In my opinion it's not that there's a POV risk/troll bait, it's that the entries are unverified and the definition of race is unclear. ColourBurst 00:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and for listcruft (a list impossible to maintain or make comprehensive, even if the subject weren't already impossible to categorize). -Markeer 01:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a bad place to go. Delete - CheNuevara 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dylan 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft and also confusing. It also assumes many people are white and doesn't explain which race someone is. T REX_speak 02:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No encyclopedic purpose is right. --Masamage 03:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - original creator of the list here. JScott06 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above and that this list can go on ad infinitum. --physicq210 04:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no idea what the point of this article is. --Dennisthe2 04:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is bad (and doesn't assert importance) but the nomination is invalid. The idea that these people are in interracial couples can be verified through media reports. JASpencer 09:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It shouldn't be deleted for the original reason stated but as others have said the list could go forever. While there may be arguments as to how each race should be classified or how one can determine to which race they belong the term is not a mythical concept. This article needs to be tidied up. The race of both partners, full names, links to partners who are on wikipedia (Iman-model), etc. would be useful. It could be helpful when people are doing research on race relations and as a link to a more detailed article on interracial marriage and relationships.TMacII 12:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally unreferenced list. It also gets pretty silly as it branches into interplanetary couples, such as William Riker and Deanna Troi. Also, in most cases it doesn't even bother to say what races the various couples are, thus negating the sole potential research value of the list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Unmaintainable list, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Maintaining this list would involve wikipedians indefinitely racially classifying people and deciding which couples don't match. That's not just unencyclopedic, it's downright creepy and it debases wikipedia as a whole. --IslaySolomon 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why would we need to stray from WP:V for this? We'd just make sure that a reliable source says that both the partners are from different races. JASpencer 16:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per the unmaintainable list factor -- Tawker 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The difficulty in maintaining and verifying this list, and protecting it from wrongdoers is just to high to justify its continued existence.-- danntm ^T _C 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy Cow Delete This Crap Now Atrocious list with problems that have already been identified. This will have a ton of POV concerns and edit wars in the future if it stays.UberCryxic 17:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First off, just because a page is vulnerable or attractive to vandals is not a reason to remove it, second, what exactly is wrong with the list? I understand if some people find this somehow offensive, but this too is not a reason to remove it, if we started removing everything that offended someone, this encyclopedia would be alot smaller. — Joshua Johaneman 20:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it has a lot more to do with its premise being subjective and unverifiable. --Masamage 02:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Per joshua.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No way to be sure who isn't. Edison 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above/nom. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:10 (UTC)
• Delete. Cicero UK 00:25, 25 September 2006 (GMT)
• Delete, mare's nest. Bishonen | talk 06:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic, verging on WP:OR. Daniel.Bryant 08:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Bizarre, ridiculous, and useless. It's inherently POV, and there's no point in an NPOV one, as no one knows what "race" is and less than no one cares about miscegenation. Geogre 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I was ready to consider this a possible improvable-with-references candidate but the majority of the couples listed are just not notable as couples. Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren is one thing, but half the people on this list ... Let's call it time this is a "so what?" and call it a day. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- what defines a couple? A 5 minute fling? A marriage? Impossible to maintain. - Longhair 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even worse than the usual abuses of the list-type article. —Encephalon 15:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are three words in the title other than "of," and the only one a substantial number of people are likely to agree on the meaning of is "list." And that's just the valid objection—I have invalid ones too.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Egad where do I start? Inherently POV, indiscriminate, and unmaintainable this list has it all. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Delete"" This article is pointless and has to relevant agenda to an encyclopedia. What is it's signifigance? If researched, what kind of information does it provide?Americanbeauty415 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep because I don't see what the big deal is. And the ((fact)) tags strike me as extremely bad faith. As if a citation is needed that "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and "Jungle Fever" are about interracial couples! Gazpacho 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do away with it! Endorse Calieber's eloquent summary. — mark ✎ 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 05:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Ben Aveling 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a little too much Mad Jack 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless list  Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I started to vote the other way until I saw Geogre's rationale that "no one cares about miscegenation". Right. But when it comes to "marrying black", it just "somehow" hasn't happened to you -- and better not happen to your daughter, eh?. Reminds me of folks who indignantly insist that racism in the U.S. is a figment of the black imagination, while ignoring those "asides" made at Christmas Dinner by Uncle Archie, Cousin Georgia-Sue and Grandpa Bubba about not hiring, not renting to, and just not liking them. Please. Some of us remember when miscegnation was illegal in most of the U.S., integrated anything was illegal in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and immigration of people of color was de facto illegal in Australia, New Zealand and other "white havens" around the world. This list documents, even if amateurishly, major change-in-progress headed in the other direction. And hope for human oneness Lethiere 05:53, 29 September 2006 (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.