Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional interracial couples

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. Singu larity 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional interracial couples

This article seems to be absolutely beyond any concept of neutral point of view supportable on Wikipedia. It presents a list of fictional people of purportedly different "race" who are couples. Certainly some of the people involved are of different backgrounds, and some are of different nationalities, but the term is arbitrary and unsupportable. For instance, no French-British couples are currently listed but several British-British couples are listed on the pretext that they are members of different "races".

In its current form this is unacceptable. It is conceivable that it could be rendered useful by removing those couples who are of the same nationality, but I seriously doubt that this was the purpose of whoever created and maintains this list. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, "French" is not a race, as generally known; it's totally reasonable for an interracial couple to both be British. In fact, the page specifically cites how it categorizes race, in this case -- and "French" isn't one of these. It has zero sources, which is bad, and is a little indiscriminate -- but it looks like a well-written list, with a lot of effort and thought behind it. Given the importance race, and especially inter-race relationships have in fictions, I'm leaning towards keep on this one. --Haemo 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is, I think, quite right. The term is not, as used here, arbitrary and unsupportable; the lead, indeed, links to Race (United States Census) in delineating its scope. It may well be that the choice of that definition of race, or the construction of a list around a rather specific definition of race, is arbitrary, and this list may indeed suffer from the various deficiencies that Haemo gives (I'm, as Haemo, rather unsure about the article, at least in its present incarnation as simply a list; an article about the portrayal of interracial couples [under the Census formulation] in, for instance, certain fictional media might be more clearly encyclopedic), but an inability to comport with NPOV (or fundamentally be to appropriately sourced, such that [POV] original research should not be used to compile the list) is not amongst those problems. Joe 04:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Medium rare delete. Regardless of POV it's quite well researched and might pass WP:V via the character/movie/TV show articles, but dismally fails WP:N. Dbromage [Talk] 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, I know you've put a lot of work into this. If anything, however, the volume of this list indicates that it's not really that unusual anymore AND that there is a lot more media now than there was when The Jeffersons first came out in 1975. Not that I haven't noticed... when "Saved by the Bell" featured a crush by Screech on the black girl, my thought was that we've come a long way. Mandsford 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Borders on listcruft, sadly, and I consider Celts/Anglo-Saxons/Gaels/Britons to be different races - what's to stop me from kicking up a fuss? Could easily flare up into something nasty. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per trivial intersection (WP:OCAT Corpx 05:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, mostly. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There seems to be a strong criteria for inclusion, based upon generally recognized racial/ ethnic groups, making it a discriminate list, therefore passing WP:NOT#INFO. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic might be worthy of inclusion if it were addressed from a historical perspective rather than as a plain list. --Metropolitan90 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Total synthesis. wikipediatrix 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the list shows how far we've come as a race {human race}; and maybe showing how far we need to go; also, the type of 'mixtures' that have been shown in the media.--Joel Lindley 21:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worthless synthesis. Bigdaddy1981 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I further note that there is a clear problem with such a list; namely that "race" is not always based on observable characteristics. For instance, "hispanic" in the United States is, according to the Census Bureau, a self-defined category - not one based on anything that a wikipedia editor could observe. Unless the list is sourced to verifiable references affirming that so-and-so considers himself to be hispanic, its totally worthless and clear OR. Bigdaddy1981 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. The US government may sometimes be considered a reliable source. No source is intrinsically reliable, however, and a source that promulgates controversial criteria isn't a reliable source for the validity of those criteria. Moreover the very concept of race is rather iffy. To take one couple from the article, Johnny and Omar in My Beautiful Laundrette don't seem to be members of different "races" at all, They're clearly both human, speak the same language, and have much in common but are, in the film, divided not by race but by racism (Johnny is a skinhead whose friends go out "paki-bashing") which is ironically founded on the concept of race. How are they members of different "races"? Who claims that they are? --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no such thing as 'race', e.g. if 'race' can't be based on 'observable characteristics', then how can there be 'racial discimination'? Just asking. Nick mallory 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my original comment a bit, I didn't say that all racial determinations cannot be based on observable characteristics merely that some (that are included in the article under discussion) cannot be in all cases. Specifically I am thinking of the the classification hispanic as it is used in the US - its self-determined and culturally based, and as such cannot always be determined based on observable characteristics of the person. Bigdaddy1981 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition to your excellent observation of "Hispanic" having become a separate "race", I would add that it would never have occurred to me, growing up, that I Love Lucy was about an "interracial marriage"... nor, I surmise, to most Americans. I have the same problem with persons who refer to the "Jewish race". Mandsford 18:14, 12 August 2007 (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.

Fictional interracial couples

zproxy.org