Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination

Racial policy of Nazi Germany

Racial policy of Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's already mentioned in Nazi racial theories (WP:ONEOTHER). IdanST (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, Austria, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  • This article's overlap with "Nazi racial theories" and other articles is significant. The bulk of the policy is already covered in the "Nuremberg Laws" article. The rest of this "racial policy" article is a survey that's far too close in substance to the "racial theories" article. I would argue for salvaging any original material from this "policy" article and merging it into the "theories" article. It's easier to maintain one good article, and it's a better reference for the reader. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. One other is a policy for disambiguation pages, which this is not. I don't see a serious argument that this isn't notable. And theories are quite different from policy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I agree that it should be deleted because the overlap is significant with Nazi racial theories and that page is also better written and provides more information. This racial policies page here is basically just a worse version of that article, with less info. DapperJakartan (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as obviously notable. This is not a duplicate, because "policy" is about actual actions and "theories" is about beliefs; these are connected but distinct. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am not particularly knowledgeable about wikipedia, but perhaps you could merge the two articles into "racial theory and policy of nazi germany" or similar? Theoldpea (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  That’s the thing though, the theories page already covers all the racial policies here and includes more information on the racial theories too. So there’s no reason for this page to exist. DapperJakartan (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  yeah, so I guess you could delete this page and then rename the other one and add additional information if necessary. Theoldpea (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  But why delete it when there is plenty of useful information here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Because the amount of useful information here overlaps significantly with a better article. Content forks like this can be confusing for readers and distracting for editors, as evidenced by this discussion. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  If there is a significant overlap, then the articles should be trimmed to reduce it. There is plenty of information about both subjects, so it is reasonable to split them. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Copyvio describes the two pages as "97.3% similar". Even the quickest perusal of the two pages shows how much overlap there is.

  You are correct that there is plenty of information about both, and policy is different from theory. Nevertheless, the article is what it is, and in its current form, it's mainly a content fork of better tended articles. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  This simply means that parts of the one article were copied into another. I am not sure what that number represents, but it is obviously untrue that 97.3% of the content is shared between the two articles. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Similar" is the operative word, and that's the issue here.

  As you said, "parts of the one article were copied into another". Wikipedia has a policy about content forks. This article seems to run afoul of it.

  Some minor shared language is one thing, but these two articles are far too similar to continue to exist as they are. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. It's clear to me that the two articles are quite distinct. This one deals with the nuts and bolts, with hard facts not in the other. Plus they're both long articles (particularly Nazi racial theories), which would warrant WP:splitting anyway if merged. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - this sounds like a clean-up issue, not an AFD issue. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a clear difference between policy and theory. Theory is theory, which means ideas, some of which may not have become policy, which is action. For example, the Nazi belief about Turks and Turkic peoples and their actual policy were completely different. I believe separate articles are needed to differentiate between the two. Hlsci (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  The difference between policy and theory isn't the issue here. Everyone understands the difference. The problem is that the articles themselves do not. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep because of the difference in topic. WP:DINC. Miniapolis 21:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Undoubtedly notable. Lorstaking (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep definitely historically notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)