Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racist love (2nd nomination)

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. Generally "lots of hits on a search engines" aren't enough to establish notability or refuting concerns about an article being a dictionary definition. Absent explicit discussion of the concept, it seems like the notability claims carry the day as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racist love

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dysklyver 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems to be used only by the authors of one study. This term is not notable, and it seems to violate Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Timeywimeyball (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Racist Love, change the topic slightly from WP:DICTDEF to Chin/Chan's 1972 paper. 3090 Gbooks results is enough to establish notability, looks like the majority of them directly refer to the 1972 paper. Timmyshin (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the questionable assertion that love can be racist, it also seems to violate WP:NPOV. While stereotypes are obviously racist, it may be somewhat similar to Asiaphilia for example. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references to this term, so seems fitting to have a page to explain the concept. Google books gets 3010 hits, not all directly relating to this concept, though many seem to. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, referring to a Gbooks search that we have all already looked at is considered a weak argument. The whole point of WP:DICTDEF is we should not have a page to explain the concept unless there is substance to to build an article which is not a simple dictionary definition. - right now that is not the case. Repeated use of the word is not useful for building an article in this situation. Dysklyver 11:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of scholarly use to show that the term is widely accepted. Beyond this, the article takes a very narrow view of racial interaction, as opposed to a world-wide view that would be required for the study of such idea properly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2017 (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.