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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Australoid[edit]

Proto-Australoid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, seems to be a bit of jargon only used in one book. Not a notable concept to be separated from Australoid. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, probable promotion / peacocking regarding the book that uses this term. —Grammardoc— ^talk 04:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually seems a reasonably widely used term; have a look at the Scholar search link above. I'm getting the impression that there are a variety of good sources to ground & inform this article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elmidae; even limiting it to 2016 produces >2 pages of GScholar hits. That said, while the topic certainly meets our requirements, the article seems a century out of date. Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to Australoid race. I think notability is a red herring, the entire article is WP:FRINGE based on a 93 year old work of scientific racism, which justifies WP:TNT in my book. There are Google Scholar hits, and some of them are recent-ish, but I wouldn't describe any of them as good sources; lots of fringe Indian physical anthropology, some mentions in historical overviews that apparently haven't updated their references since the 1940s, maybe a handful of examples of mainstream anthropologists using it to refer to a morphometric/craniometric type (but these are very WP:PRIMARY). In theory we could have an article covering Proto-Australoid as a notable historic/fringe concept, but I doubt the sources are there. In any case, this isn't it. – Joe (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the event that this is actually scientific racism, I've added to two more deletion sorting pages. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2016 (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.