Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse racism

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 keep. L Faraone 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse_racism

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

WP:NOTRS Gerntrash (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic and its very label has received growing academic attention, such as here: http://pps.sagepub.com/content/6/3/215.short . So, even if some current sources are weak, the article can be upgraded. The scope goes beyond US and South Africa, e.g. on French wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racisme_antiblanc .Whether reverse racism is reality or perception is, of course, a subject of further debate. But the topic is there to stay, and it belongs on wikipedia.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Racism or Reverse discrimination. Ignatz mice•talk 19:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination. Title of article refers to discrimination rather than racism as such. The article is well researched and its content should be retained if not already in revese discrimination. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination Rrreese (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reverse discrimination as a fork. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of academic worth,and is a highly contentious issue which has been discussed widely by both the press and in academia. It is of my opinion, however, that the majority of the article needs to be re-written and expanded. Particularly as the existence of "reverse-racism" is implied throughout the article, even though it is hotly debated whether 'reverse-racism' truly exists.Veryirregularuser (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable widely discussed topic, most recognizable under this particular name. Agree the article needs upgrading. groupuscule (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . There is room for both to develop. this is asubset of the general topic. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:16, 14 May 2013 (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.