Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial hoax

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. The article is clearly not based on a single source, so WP:GNG is met. The term does, however, seem to be tied to a single author, Katheryn Russell-Brown. In these cases it is often an editorial decision whether a subtopic deserves a standalone article (or if a merge is in order), and the result depends on the weighted numerical majority. The "keep" !votes are more numerous, but discounting a few weak arguments, I find both sides to be of comparable strength. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racial hoax[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominated by an IP user: Non-notable concept. Any references to this term I can find ultimately lead back to a single author, Katheryn Russell-Brown, showing that this concept has not reached the level of notability for an article. There are a handful of notes about her work on it, but the little I can find is fairly surface level and doesn't add the sort of analysis that would be required for building a well developed, neutral article. Moreover, the vast vast majority of the article is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, attempting to attribute documented cases to this concept, despite no other authors having done so. Strip that out, and also the "Concept" material which doesn't really discuss this as a concept, and this boils down to a single source. UtherSRG (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Ethnic groups, and Popular culture. UtherSRG (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Aquillion, Firefangledfeathers, Gumbear, Maxxhiato, Tulzscha, and 195.180.48.123: Pinging participants in a relevant talk page thread from March 2023 to February 2024, which is preserved at the talk page of this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to copy the talk to the deletion discussion's talk, as nothing has, yet, been deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / delete. A few small parts are mergable - specifically, the parts of the concept section about Russel-Brown's writings can be merged to Katheryn Russell-Brown and / or The Color of Crime (1998 book); but the rest (the bulk of the article) ought to be deleted as WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. As an academic term it's real but is mostly just by one author and is better covered on that author's page; the rest of it is mostly just a list of whenever the media has used the words "hoax" and is original research / synthesis in the sense that it connects a bunch of things to a theory when most of them lack sources making that link. --Aquillion (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a demonstrably real social phenomenon. Perhaps rename it "List of Racial Hoaxes"? religious hoax is also merely a list of notable religious hoaxes. Not sure why we'd treat the two differently.
Also, after reviewing the AfD Discrimination nominations, need to make sure this isn't a larger effort towards viewpoint censorship. Gumbear (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming/framing it as a list doesn't address the fundamental notability problem (and only probably weakens its case per WP:NLIST). As for the other, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And finally, please tone down the censorship rhetoric; it's not helpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of citations. Article may need improvement, but AfD is not for cleanup. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't clean up a lack of notability, and that is for AFD. Simply having citations isn't enough, and you didn't address the deletion rationale that I provided. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the incidents listed are notable, there are not enough sources beyond Russel-Brown's book and other writings to enable the article to explore the concept itself. TH1980 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real topic, meets WP:GNG. Yes, the article needs improvements, and as Skyerise pointed out this is not the purpose of AfD. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since my whole point was that this is the work of a single author, thus not meeting GNG, can you explain how you think it meets GNG, rather than simply making an assertion to the contrary? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:GNG? As long as an article has received coverage in several secondary sources, it is presumed notable (in most cases, see WP:SNG. The author you mentioned is the one who first brought up the concept. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A single author writing about a topic, even multiple times, does not confer a pass on GNG. Articles like this are routinely deleted on notability grounds, even when there are multiple authors working closely together. Without outside attention and analysis given to the topic, a neutral article can't be written. The sourcing that would be needed about this topic to sustain GNG simply doesn't exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cocobb8. An article fails when a single source is used, thus making it original research. If a single person edits the article, that's not a reason to delete. In 2024, everyone knows that, and Red herrings don't work at AfD. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, please reread what I wrote. I'm not talking about a single Wikipedia author editing this page; I'm talking about Russell-Brown being the only author who's written about the topic of the article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above Claire 26 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2024 (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.