Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood purity (2nd nomination)

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. Owen× ☎ 23:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity

AfDs for this article:

[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)

"Blood purity" does not occur as a term in any of the linked articles except Fictional universe of Harry Potter (the original intention of the page as first written), and Limpieza de sangre: other entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. If rewritten as an article it would require sources, which it currently doesn't have and so fails WP:V. An alternative to deletion may be to redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter with a hatnote to other use(s). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Social science, and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Applying the term "blood purity" to refer to blood quantum laws, half-caste status, etc., is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and it doesn't seem necessary to redirect this as a concept to the Fictional universe of Harry Potter page (where it appears the concept in the HP universe is called "purity of blood"?). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow, this is not a topic space I want to be much involved in. As I understand disambiguation policy, there are two burdens that need to be met. Fist, there need to be at least three valid dab topics (WP:TWODABS), and second, those target articles need to make use of the disambiguated term (WP:DABMENTION). That complicates AFD somewhat, because an article that should deal with a disambiguated topic but doesn't is an editorial issue for the target article rather than strictly a deletion issue for the disambiguation page... at least in my mind. Anyway. I don't think there's any real debate that Limpieza de sangre and Fictional universe of Harry Potter are both relevant target articles for this topic. Looking exclusively at peer reviewed journal content here, because hoo boy I do not want to do general searches on this, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that racial hygiene should also be a valid dab target,[1][2][3][4] although the article at current does not make use of this term. There's also quite a bit in the literature about parallel concepts in Japanese and Korean culture, although I don't honestly even know what the applicable extant article would be for that, if any. There is at least some scholarly use of the term in the context of the blood quantum laws [5][6] although I'll admit that's somewhat less common that its use in the German, Japanese, or Korean context. I didn't look into the Australian stuff. I've searched just about enough of this for one day. Lubal (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The concept of "blood purity" (or being a "pureblood") is a big deal in the post-COVID-19 antivax community, and it is surprising that this is mentioned nowhere in the encyclopedia. It should be noted somewhere relevant, and added to this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
Note: see, e.g., France 24, "Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement", stating "In closed social media groups, vaccine skeptics -- who brand themselves as "pure bloods" -- promote violence against doctors administering coronavirus jabs alongside false claims of mass deaths of vaccinated people"; Vice, "Unvaccinated TikTokers Are Calling Themselves 'Purebloods'"; The Edge, "Purebloods: The Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy of the Anti-Vax Movement", stating, "In September 2021, an assemblage of TikTok users anointed themselves 'Purebloods' for their repudiation of the COVID vaccine". BD2412 T 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this content to an appropriate article and this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This strikes me as a situation where WP:MEDRS would apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are social conventions, not actual biomedical information. WP:MEDRS applies to the latter. BD2412 T 13:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as DICTDEF. An article on "Purebloods" in the anti-vax context would be not only a GNG pass, but strikes me as a deficiency of WP by not having it. That is not what this is. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – So many possible DAB targets have emerged in this discussion that deletion now makes no sense. The suggestions from Lubal and BD2412 for what to include seem well-reasoned. Toadspike [Talk] 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the phrase seems to be too ambiguous to redirect to any of the (several dissimilar and notable) topics that the term could describe. The disambiguation page should remain. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICT "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." The term "blood purity" is found in different wordings ("pure blooded" i.e.), essentially meaning the same thing. Whether talking about a race of people, or a breed of animal. Go with whatever usage the source does. We don't need a DAB page to tell us that. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there are multiple valid targets here, and we only need two where one is non-primary to warrant a DAB page. Fictional universe of Harry Potter and Limpieza de sangre on their own are enough to support a DAB. Content on the DAB page past that is another question, but it's not one for AFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a disambiguation page. It may need a bit of revision to adhere to modern standards of dab pages, but that does not change the fact that it is a dab page. And it's a valid dab, since it could very easily point to either of Limpieza de sangre or Fictional universe of Harry Potter without either being an obvious WP:PTOPIC. As such, we should keep this page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid disambiguation page and serves a good purpose. Malinaccier (talk) 14:00, 17 June 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.