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 Speedy Keep. AfD is not the place to have a "conversation" about what to do with the page, there's a perfectly usable Talk page for that. Additionally, I'd suggest that the nominator read over the deletion policy before creating further AfDs, as "prevention of an edit war" isn't a good reason to suggest deletion of an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian race

[edit]

Nominating for Deletion Reason: How is caucasian race notable? how can people make an article on caucasians as a race? I dont see any point in having an editor war over this pages who obviously are quite discriminating in one way. I think its time that we have a actuall vote on if we should keep or delete this sort of pages.So have your say. --Matrix17 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And see: Encyclopedia. "An encylopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." How is caucasian race notable? how can people make an article on caucasians as a race? Read the article. Lukas19 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:i just referre to the answer to lukas from the white people deletion argument. I think their is cause for atleast a conversation ove rhow to do with this page. pointing out people as races.like in the old days.--Matrix17 20:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An encyclopedia should not delete information and historical accounts on what has been and what is. This and other similar articles are not putting a value to a certain skin color or "race" but only describing the cultural heritage and history of mankind - with all the bad sides to it. If this article is deleted then we're on a slippery slope and it could lead to historical revisionism, much worse than the proposer is suggesting. Closing the eyes won't make any suggested problems disappear - only enlightenment can take care of that. Strangnet 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The rationale for deleting this article is exceedingly flawed, verging on bad faith. This is a bonafide subject with encyclopedic value. --Ezeu 23:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - To repeat what I have said for this nominator's previous AfD initiations: I don't understand the nominator's reasoning at all, and see absolutely no violation of Wikipedia policy in letter or spirit with this topic. Nomination appears to be a case of unsupported WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is no reason for exclusion. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This nomination is nonsense. JuJube 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Like the nominator's other noms today, quite ludicrous, even taking into account WP:AGF. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep ignoring racial denominations is not reflective of the world at large, and thus, should not be reflective of wikipedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No policy-oriented reasoning at all given for deletion. Mwelch 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. The nom seems to be inspired by political correctness. --Dennisthe2 00:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No good reason given to delete this article. Wikipedia would be a sad excuse for an encyclopedia without an article on this subject. --Lukobe 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; nominator appears to be violating WP:POINT --Mhking 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep.. Are we certain Matrix17 is not working for NAACP? In any case, you know what: who cares if he report this to NAACP. This article, unlike caucasian race, actually explore the perceptions of each regions with Caucasians. I think this is a valid article. As for Caucasian race, which is also going AFD and nominated by Matrix17, that's a even more valid article if not more. May be a bit better rewording, but nothing a move can't solve. And you know what? The exact reason why we have racism is because, aside from people who are out right racist, is also because we have people who decided to do a young Malcom X and just accuse everything that is unfavorable to them as racist. And no, political correctness, which is clearly what the nominator trying to do, just does not work, unless you actually believe that by erasing essential but ugly knowledges will help things out. Then again, in that case, why don't we take out male and female? Why don't we take out fat and thin? Oh yeah, one more thing: the nominator clearly violated WP:NPOV and WP:POINT.George Leung 03:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to assume he works for NAACP. Refrain from unsubstantiated accusations. --Ezeu 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 93,000 Google hits for "Caucasian race" exclusive of Wikipedia. The article has numerous independent references from reliable sources. Satisfies WP:ATT and WP:N. "IDONTLIKEIT" is a poor reason for deleting such an article. No reason to merge with White race. Edison 03:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm adding to the avalanche of support for keeping the article. It is difficult to assume good faith in the nomination. Caucasian is obviously a notable race. Pablothegreat85 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep These bad-faith nominations have to stop. — Moe 04:29, 19 March 2007 (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.