Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africoid peoples

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africoid peoples[edit]

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

This seems to be a neologism or fringe theory. I don't think that main-stream science says that all people in Africa and/or all dark pigmented people in the Old World are of the same race, as this article seems to be saying. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the term is not in common use, there are some GBooks hits. That might be enough to edge it into being a notable fringe theory. Perhaps a redirect to one of the better known terms for all dark pigmented people in the world? Edward321 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm doing extensive reading of anthropology sources just now to edit other Wikipedia articles, and this is not even a notable fringe theory. It's just plain poorly sourced pseudoscience. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears to be a reworking of the Negroid concept, which appears to have its origin as a theory in the 1600s and was mainstream science until well into the 20th century. Men like François Bernier and Carolus Linneaus seem to have held this view of race, though obviously not under this name. The general theory is notable, (which is not the same thing as correct) the question is whether this modern renaming and restatement of the theory is notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks for follow-up comment: article should be deleted I appreciate you making the fine distinction about notability. My answer to your thoughtful question is that the current reliable sources in the relevant disciplines do not support any mention of that concept at all. The term and the underlying concept are below the level of even being noticed in the indexes of any of the better current reference books or textbooks on the subjects related to that issue. The article should be deleted for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipaedia is the perfect location for an article about a fringe topic. One of Wikipaedia's greatest contributions is its ease of access to fringe ideas that would be difficult for viewers to learn anywhere else. Further more, being a fringe topic does not exclude the topic from having notability. Regardless, I have a strong suspicion that this nomination for deletion is inspired by an (understandable) political or personal objection to the theory contained in the article. BlueRobe (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlueRobe, you wrote, "Wikipaedia is the perfect location for an article about a fringe topic." My friendly question is, which posted Wikipedia policy says that that is one of the purposes of Wikipedia? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You think Wikipaedia should be restricted to mainstream ideas? I think you've missed the point of Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I paid a visit to Urban Dictionary. com to see how the term is used: 1. A term used to refer to a negroid. Usually derogatory. [example] Holy shit! That mad Africoid is running around like a monkey robbing people! About what I figured. All dressed up like a serious article, but clearly a fringe POV Trojan Horse. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You...went to Urban Dictionary for verification? I am confused. Should I go to Encyclopedia Dramatica to search for other stuff as well? Silver seren^C 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with Non-Notable Neologisms like this one, what better source is there, really??? Carrite (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the sources I provided in discussion near the bottom of the page. Silver seren^C 05:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case made well by you below that "Africoid" is an anthropological term equivalent to Caucasoid peoples and Mongoloid peoples. Are those links red or blue? Hmmm, why do you think that is??? My previous comment stricken, no opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of searching, I did find why they were not redlinked. That's because they are under the titles Mongoloid race and (after a redirect) Caucasian race. While, yes, there is an African people article, as this article itself states, the term Africoid is not limited to just Africa (though it does include it), so this article should be seen as a level higher than the African people article. Silver seren^C 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I agree completely with Edward321: the general topic, though not supported by modern science, is notable. It's unclear whether this particular version is notable; in this case I tend to think so, though I might be swayed if other information comes to light. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CRGreathouse, would "other information" satisfactory to you include finding that no current, professionally edited major reference book on anthropology used in undergraduate or graduate teaching so much as mentions the concept? Remember, core Wikipedia policy says, " It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't quote only sections of policies that serve your own purpose. The part of the Due and Undue Weight section that your quote comes from is about having minority views in articles about major topics. The real section about articles on minority views states,

"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points." Silver seren^C 02:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to the specific policy most applicable here. But, yes, then the issue is appropriate sourcing to effectuate that policy. (I think that is the concern that motivated the nomination for deletion, which I had nothing to do with.) I turned to several sources that I happened to have at hand for major edits to other articles that indubitably will stay in place in Wikipedia. And what I see in those sources is that it may be quite difficult to source the article under discussion here properly according to Wikipedia policy. And that would go back to the phrase "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all," which is the policy issue that comes up if a few (not particularly reliable) sources mention the view a little, but the most reliable sources don't mention the issue at all (as being unworthy of mention in the overall context of the discipline). As always, sources make clear how to apply policy, so I appreciate your reminder to double-check the specific policy on specific articles about minority views that may warrant encyclopedic mention if neutral point of view can be achieved from reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having any problems in finding reliable sources that discuss Africoid peoples. You can look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I can go on, if you wish. Silver seren^C 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check Horowitz, Irving Louis (1995), "The Rushton File: Racial Comparisons and Media Passions", Society, 32: 7–17 for what the very publisher of the books says about books by Ivan Van Sertima. (I have that full source at hand for editing another Wikipedia article that cites that source.) Transaction Publishers publishes the books because they get people talking about unusual ideas, not because the books are endorsed as accurately reporting well evidenced theories. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, non-Ivan Van Sertima sources. Check here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Like before, I can add more if I need to. Much more. Silver seren^C 04:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you were replying to my last post, I was looking at your user page to see what approach you take when discussing articles nominated for deletion. I greatly admire your approach of fixing articles when the sword of deletion hangs over their head. I like to support such efforts by finding reliable sources. Not novels, and not just one guy with his pet idea, but multiple reliable secondary sources that are counted on in the scholarly community not to push a point of view. When such sources can be found, Wikipedia can improve. It may be that there are sufficient sources specifically critical of some of the other sources that have been mentioned here that there is hope for writing an article with a good match to Wikipedia policy. That could best be shown by edits to the article. I offer to all Wikipedians source lists to help meet the goal (which you evidently share) of making Wikipedia accurate and helpful to learners. Keep up the good work of pressing me and everyone to check sources—in my turn, I'll be glad to discuss with you and with everyone what signs we editors can look at to evaluate the reliability of sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WeijiBaikeBianji: No, that would not. I assume that no one (except possibly some fringe elements?) believes it now. But we properly have articles like Classical element, Phlogiston theory, Luminiferous aether, etc. that are no longer believed—notability is not temporary. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CRGreathouse, so your comment I should take to mean that the best way to effectuate Wikipedia here is to leave the article on Wikipedia, but just make sure it is sourced and edited in a way that reflects the place of the theory in the reliable sources, right? I can certainly live with that. (I'm newer here than you, I rather suspect, so I respect the expressions of policy outcomes that you and Silver seren have shared with the discussion.) It occurs to me that although I have few reference books at hand that mention the minority view at all, there ought to be critical reviews of Ivan Van Sertima's books that would help to source a neutral point of view article. P.S. What do you think about the analogous articles Caucasoid peoples and Mongoloid peoples being redlinks? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer above to Carrite for an explanation of that. Silver seren^C 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My meaning was that finding that no one currently supports the theory is not an argument for deletion. If other reasons are found for deletion, I'm willing to consider them. But failing that, yes the article should be kept.

Either of those articles you mention could be added. Alternately, this article could be moved to a location discussing the three, assuming there isn't enough information on them individually (but there may be). I can't immediately recall the proper term for such categorization (and hence for a combined article), though.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer to Carrite above, those two articles do already exist. Silver seren^C 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is this article not a fringe-viewpoint portrayal of the same subject as Black people? Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the term Africoid is used different within an anthropological standpoint, acting both as more restrictive and less, depending on who uses it.

In a separate point, you should notice that most of the information in this article is not in the Black people article. Do you really think these should be merged? That would be messy and give undue weight to the anthropological version. I think it should definitely stay separate, though a See Also (if not a small paragraph) should be put into the Black people article, linking to this one. Silver seren^C 19:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think there are sufficient sources to show that this is either a notable term, or a notable theory. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That carries a lot of weight with me, so I'll stick with my support for deleting the article. I know that DGG is a librarian (that is, he has access to a lot of sources) and that he generally supports keeping articles. (He has talked me out of two deletes just in the past month, and I'm devoting a lot of time to fixing one of those articles now.) There are existing Wikipedia articles that can adequately address what little might possibly need addressing regarding this fringe topic. Reliable sources are still paramount in Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a direct response to the sources I provided in the discussion above? Silver seren^C 03:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the term is used; I do not see it is used in any consistent sense--in some of the references it seems to mean "anyone who looks like what we think of as African"; in some it refers to a language group. The use by the americanists seems like a yet third distinct use. The conclusion I reach is that the available material does not support the present article.

but I also want to say that there are some areas in which I am more inclusionist than the average here--and some less. Sometimes I just set the bar lower or higher; sometimes I judge by a different standard. The only time where I attempt to give consensus is when I give advice,or when I close a discussion--not when I argue. Most of my activity at rfa is devoted to rescuing articles, but that's in order to try to counter any bias from the fact that inevitably most people come here to delete them. If people are going to take my "delete" as a veto, it wouldn't be fair for me to ever say that here at all, for I have always been opposed to the idea of Wikipedia having a central authority to decide on content--not even me. Certainly not me, actually, because I am very much more aware of my errors than anyone else here can be. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be fringe, but it does not appear to be notable, due to lack of significant coverage. Some of the article appears to be WP:Synthesis. Specific examples of poor sourcing: Cite in FN 1 not found (404). Cite in FN 5 does not use term. Cite in FN 28 was to a forum post and was not found. Others are similar. --Bejnar (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the sources provided in the discussion above. Silver seren^C 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I forgot to vote. I think i've explained my stance well enough in the discussion above. Silver seren^C 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be an article about a word (africoid) so there are immediately WP:DICDEF issues. But the word does not appear in the OED nor is it used in the title of any of the numerous sources provided. This therefore seems to be a flimsy synthesis. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (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.