Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mestizos in the United States

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. ✗plicit 01:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizos in the United States

[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)

“Mestizo” is not an actual ethnic group or term used in the USA to self-identify by Native Americans or Indigenous-adjacent people at all. The term itself is racist, rooted in white supremacy, and some countries in Latin America like Bolivia have decided to do away with the anti-Indigenous colonial-era term entirely. I recommend you all to actually read about the term and why it’s so offensive to spanish-speaking detribalized natives like myself and others. We are not “mestizo”, we are Native American, we do NOT wish to be called “mestizo”. This article is also highly one-sided in its perspective, plenty of people have tried to edit it and have had their edits removed because they pointed it out the white supremacist origins of this term or why it’s offensive and racist, despite having sources/references to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koire292 (talk • contribs) 14:54, May 10, 2022 (UTC (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. As for my own view, nominator (a newly-created account with no edits outside of this topic) is not offering a policy-based reason to delete the article. There may be valid arguments for moving the article, redirecting it and/or blowing it up and starting over, but I'll leave that to editors who are far more knowledgeable on the topic than I. --Finngall ^talk 00:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment for User:Koire292 I trust you on this, although I don't know about the term. Wikipedia does have articles on racist terms. If you would like to collaborate to make this article accurate, i.e. to include an explanation that the term is rejected, racist etc, I would be happy to collaborate on that. CT55555 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote follows, my chat with User:Koire292 continues on their talk page, and thinking time makes me want to support delete more than this comment suggests, so I've struck out my comment above CT55555 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly expand on why the article title is considered offensive if so. I don't know about the term either but deleting means losing the opportunity to educate. oncamera _{(talk page)} 07:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct matched this. We have many articles about offensive terms. But we don't tend to have forks that describe the use of offensive terms. I think Mestizo might be the place for the educations. That argument aside, this article is mostly uncited, therefore appears like a lot of WP:OR. I say this in case those details might shift your thinking, as they did mine. CT55555 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
procedural keep/close - no policy based rationale given. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The nominator is new. But I think I understand their intentions, even if the AfD doesn't refer to policy, the argument does relate to WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article seems to consist of original research (or WP:SYNTH) and the subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 13:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For multiple reasons:

It's mostly uncited, therefore original research. In fact the bulk of it is uncited. That would normally be a problem, but in the case of content that is controversial (to put it mildly) this is all way below the quality-bar. Such articles require much greater care (essay: WP:CONTROVERSY)
I am not suggesting it as created with bad intent (sincerely) but it is (as per nominator) perpetuating ideas that are perceived as racist. Our tolerance for this should (essay: WP:NORACISTS) be low. CT55555 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a third (basically echoing Cullen328) this is like an essay and therefore delete as per WP:NOTESSAY CT55555 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. It is poorly referenced and most of the references do not even mention mestizos. There is no evidence that any significant group of people self-identify as mestizo Americans, and the term is not in common usage in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was originally going to vote keep, as the deletion rationale is wrong about Wikipedia's role. There are articles for many other offense terms, and I don't believe WP:NORACISTS applies. However the article starts by saying the term isn't officially used in the US, and there are no figures for population. It doesn't get better as the article goes on. We have an article on Mestizo, and any details of its changing use, racial overtones and colonial history should be there. What is here is a lot of poorly referenced WP:OR. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my mention of WP:NORACISTS...I accept this is vague and open to debate. This article is not overtly relevant to the essay, but I think that the first two subsections of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_racists#Problems_with_racism are relevant. But I could be wrong, I don't want to over-state it. CT55555 (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a term not used in the US and the article is trying to make dinstictions that are not existent in a real or at least a trackable way in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2022 (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.