Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest African Americans


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

100 Greatest African Americans

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest African Americans}}}|2=AfD statistics}})

The book is not notable as required by WP:NB if you apply the same logic as being applied to Who’s_Who_in_Nebraska. Drmissio (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  Speedy keep. Keep(see below). Disruptive, WP:POINTy nomination by Who’s Who in Nebraska's disgruntled author. No valid reason for deletion given: WP:BK specifically says that it doesn't cover encyclopedias., . — Rankiri (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. —Rankiri (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so speedy suggestion to produce at least some evidence of notability. Author's reputation alone is not sufficient (neither is the alleged motive for this AFD). East of Borschov (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The book (full title: 100 Greatest African Americans: A Biographical Encyclopedia) is considered to be a reference work (, etc). WP:BK doesn't quite apply. I already mentioned one review by About.com . Here's another two by the Reference & User Services Quarterly and Children's Literature (journal):, . — Rankiri (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is still unsourced. Discounting bookstore ad, wikis and bare database entries, your links amount to just one: the Georgia State librarian review. It is actually good because it lists six similar books and attempts a comparison between Asante's and one of his competitors... and is, indeed, quite critical ("I'm just not sure that he stuck to his criteria" ). I could insert Mrs. Hughes opinion in the article right now but, I'm afraid a mixed opinion of a college librarian (and nothing else) isn't good enough for this AFD. East of Borschov (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, About.com is not a wiki: . Secondly, the review by Children's Literature is an independent source, not a "bookstore ad". You could easily verify its validity on childrenslit.com: . Third, instead of doubting my objectivity, please reread WP:BK (this guideline does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: . . . reference works such as dictionaries, thesauri, encyclopedias . . .) or try looking for additional sourcing yourself. Thank you. — Rankiri (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The District of Columbia Public Library quotes two additional reviews by Booklist (American Library Association) and School Library Journal: . And here's my evidence for the WP:POINTiness—or should I say pointlessness?—of this nomination: . — Rankiri (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment All the things I can find other than what Rankiri has given do indeed use the book as a reference specifically. And since we have no real guidelines for how reference books work on Wikipedia and because of Rankiri's good amount of work on finding reliable sources, i'm going to have to say...
 * Keep Unless someone can find real standards on how reference books are rated, I guess we just have to rely on WP:GNG, which I do believe it passes. Silver  seren C 19:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I am NOT disgruntled -- merely perplexed. Rankiri and seren have made some good points why this volume, as a reference type work (or encyclopedia) does not "fit" the way in which "notability" is handled for other types of works.  Now -- go read the deletion talk on "Who's Who in Nebraska" -- a similar reference type book (or encyclopedia).  I am just merely raising the question:  What is the right way these types of works should be handled?  and can't those working on Wikipedia apply a common standard to all works within this class or type of material? Drmissio (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Drmissio, did you mean to !vote "keep" after you made the deletion nomination? If so, it might make more sense to withdraw the nomination. Maurreen (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this type of thing is ripe for a discussion at the Village Pump, in order to create proper policy. I'm going to go make that now. Silver  seren C 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have created a discussion here, in order to hash out what the notability guidelines for reference works should be. I gladly encourage all of you and anyone else who sees this to contribute to the discussion. Silver  seren C 22:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Seren. As I have reviewed biographical dictionary articles on Wikipedia, I have noticed that "Notability guidelines" for these types of reference works are unevenly handled.  I am perplexed at the zeal of some of the editors attacking some of these works -- but not other similar ones.  It just does not make sense to me.  Editing should be judicious but gracious as well.  After all the intent should be to weed out the fraudulent, spamming, and self-promotion.   But this is not what is going on.  May common sense prevail !!    Drmissio (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, this book does have substantive treatment in secondary sources. For example, it is listed in Recommended Reference Books for Small and Medium-Sized Libraries and Media Centers. Use the Google searches provided at the top of this AfD and there are more. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note A discussion about creating a guideline for reference works is currently ongoing at Village pump (policy) (If we consider this as a reference book). Please see the page and contribute to the discussion if possible. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete  I'm amazed its listed in that work, because I do not consider Prometheus a high-level reputable reference publisher. Apparently others do, but in this case I'm going on my own opinion.  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about 4 or 5 independent reviews? — Rankiri (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The SK guideline no longer applies, but I believe I found enough independent, non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I'm changing my earlier vote to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rankiri. The nominator seems to be climbing the Reichstag to illustrate his WP:POINT Rin tin tin (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.