Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigmentocracy

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 merge to colorism. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigmentocracy[edit]

This is just a neologism. The general concept is very important, but if it were being discussed under this name there would be a lot more material. As it is there is just one link to one article which uses the expression in its title. No evidence that anyone else uses the word. Redddogg (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times used the term as far back as 1993[1]. Google scholar finds 337 uses of the term[2]. Pburka (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, or better yet merge with Colorism. For a 15-year old word championed by the NY Times, that small a number of ghits is a reasonable indication that it never really caught on as a term. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to colorism, and merge the detritus that doesn't exist in that article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2008 (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.