Deletion of Racial transformation

Comment: I find the above nomination rationale to be incomprehensible. The article has five references, all of which look reliable on a cursory examination - and the nominator does not say what they regard the article as being redundant to or a  of. The article does have problems, but I do not see that any of them would be improved by deletion. The references make it clear that the article title is certainly sometimes (though not always) used with the meaning given here, and while the article as it stands is clearly a slightly vague , the topic certainly looks encyclopedic - I see no reason why the article can not be suitably expanded, and I can not immediately find another article on the same, or even closely related, topic. Another problem certainly would not be improved by deletion: until an editor's apparently unilateral decision in February 2014, the article at this title was the one now at Racial transformation (individual), which itself was created by another editor copying and pasting the previous text from this article to the new one in June 2014. Thus simply deleting the article would effectively remove the earlier part of the latter's edit history. In fact, unless the nominator cares to clarify their reasoning, there would, I think there would be grounds for a |speedy keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:DICDEF||WP:SK)