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.
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, LizRead!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
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.
BD2412T23:30, 2 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
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
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.