Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (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 Mandsford 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

See also Articles for deletion/African Americans in Davenport, Iowa

This page was nominated before in February 2009, and the decision was to delete. That decision was overturned in deletion review, in order to allow the authors to develop the article and show the notability of the topic. The article has not improved and contains OR and SYN. There is very little source material that pertains to the 9,000 blacks who lived in Davenport. Even the article name is an anachronism because during the period in question, they were not called "African Americans." This is a very nice essay, but it is not an encyclopedia article. Racepacket (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has many references, quite a few of which relate directly to the topic of Davenport's African-American community. The article covers history to the present, so usage of "African-American" is appropriate. Nominator's use of past tense indicates that the entire article may not have been read, and that nominator may not realize that this community still exists. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Past tense used because census figure is 10 years old and matters discussed occured as early as the Civil War. None of the sources demonstrate notability of this Davenport community, but rather cover broader communities. Racepacket (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of Black vs. African American in Wikipedia has been debated, see African American. No consensus was reached. If Racepacket wishes to reopen this debate, this is not the forum for it; instead please see How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance and follow those guidelines to reopen the debate. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, article is for all intents and purposes original research and synthesis. It is altogether unclear that this particular topic is specific enough to support an article. As the nominator mentions, there has been nearly two years to bring the article up to scratch, and it hasn't happened. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. While not a spectacular article, it is a notable topic, and contains verifiable references; I leared a lot from it. Of course, like the majority of articles on WP, it could use some work, but it is dramatically improved from the last time it was nominated. The amount of antagonism this article has attracted relative to its shortcomings is puzzling. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my suggestion in the previous AFD that a general article on African Americans in Iowa should be created instead of this original research essay. Secret account 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve The article could be improved by working in discussion of buildings and other tangible artifacts from the history of African Americans in Davenport, using NRHP nomination documents, including the 1982-1983 study of Davenport's historic resources, e.g. work in mention the 1910 Bethel A.M.E. church (see page 16 in PDF: until the 1920's Davenport's black community was small and scattered...).
 * In quick review of the 2 part study, i don't see other useful mentions, but there may be more in there and there may be subsequent NRHP listings. Also the bibliographies of those studies include many off-line good history-of-Davenport sources to consult.  Also, have you checked with reference librarians in Davenport's public library.  I imagine they could be very helpful.  Offline sources are fine to use in Wikipedia.
 * I notice in the first AFD there was claim this is the largest black community in Iowa, now revised in article (with source) to state it is the 3rd largest. I suppose the original assertion might have to do with knowledge (not sourced) that it once was the largest black community, which is possible and worth noting with source if true.  That would go towards establishing clearer notability of the topic.  Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. It is highly likely that the NRHP nomination document for the Bethel A.M.E. church (different document focussing on it alone) will include a good amount of background on the black community in Davenport. Most NRHP nom documents do include extensive background history, with good sources.  Request this document to be postal-mailed to you, for free, from the National Register, following instructions at wp:NRHPhelp. --Doncram (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve was the outcome nearly two years ago. It hasn't improved and I don't think it can. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would expect the Davenport, Iowa article to cover all buildings on the national register irrespective of the race of their users. Why should we divide NRHP listings by race? Why not take all of the historic materials available and write one comprehensive history of the town covering all of its racial and ethic groups?  Otherwise, it would be a POV-fork. Racepacket (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The notability of any particularly identified racial or ethnic group within a defined geographic area in the United States can be established through the US Census: As long as the Census distinguishes a population, it is notable. A clear rule needs to be established about this on WP in order to dispel continued perceptions of bias against racial or ethnic groups, and this AfD shows why. • Freechild talk  16:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No just because an ethnic group is listed on the census doesn't mean it's notable, it would create thousands of non-notable communities of ethnic groups in small towns, there is no bias against creating communities of this casliber, but the sources indicate that it doesn't explain the community in detail other than a church and the census record. If you could find sources making the community notable go ahead, but we shouldn't include the census (which is also a primary source, while allowed we should look for secondary sources). Secret account 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't think that's a useful rule, because the census relies on self-reporting of race/ethnicity, and just counts how many people in a given place identify with certain categories. It has nothing to do with the census "distinguishing" such a group, and it doesn't give any basis for writing a full article about them, or even a stub; it's just a numerical statistic. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? Are you actually insisting that we could also have Pacific Islanders in Davenport, Iowa on the sole basis that the census counted some? postdlf (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note The US Census is the most reliable source in the US for determining a population's notability in any given community, and should be used as the premise for establishing the notability of a racial or ethnic group in any given community. With the Census as the primary source, secondary sources should be used to support that data. This means that if the Census finds the African American population in any small town in America is quantifiable, it is inherently notable. Perception doesn't determine notability; reliable sources do. The Census is the primary reliable source for any population data in the US. postdlf, I don't think it's our job to argue the Census' reliability, as the US Government uses it to base many, many decisions on. • Freechild talk  18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing with its reliability; I was disagreeing with you as to its depth or substance. The U.S. Census is the most reliable source in the U.S. for determining a population's existence.  A populated place (city, village, CDP, etc.) that has census data is inherently notable, but there certainly isn't a consensus (or anyone other than you claiming it, to my knowledge) that every racial subdivision of such populated places are also inherently notable.  I just don't see how you extract "inherent notability" from a mere headcount, such that every countable racial population within every municipality and CDP would merit its own article.  So you really think Pacific Islanders in Davenport, Iowa is a notable topic just because the Census counted some?  That's not a rhetorical question; please answer it.  postdlf (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * postdlf, my apologies for misunderstanding your point about the Census. I believe that the federal government identifying a population as existent and necessary enough to include on the Census in any given community should serve as the primary source for notability. Secondary sources to support that population's notability within a given geographic area would in turn merit the inclusion of that population/community community combination in WP. So, if the 24 Pacific Islanders in Davenport were notable enough to warrant RS identifying their racial/ethnic background in the community, then by all means the topic of Pacific Islanders in Davenport, Iowa warrants inclusion. • Freechild talk  19:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this article since it passes WP standards. However it probably shouldn't have been written in the first place since WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia consisting of articles which people can read and become more educated. If there was an article on each ethnic group in each town or city in the world (as there could be if people care to write them) then no one would ever read them all in one lifetime.  It would be much better to have an article on the history of Davenport and then one on African Americans in Iowa (or even in the Midwest).  People could handle that.  A hundred articles on African American communities in every Midwestern town would have people reading the same information over and over. Wolfview (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that not every cross between ethnic group X location needs an article, but I believe based on what is in the article already that is a significant, notable situation. --Doncram (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article should not be deleted. However it would be a good thing if WP editors put the reader first in choosing what to write articles on. There is so much room for improvement in WP's coverage of African American history and culture.  Why waste your time and effort on something so narrow in scope? (Although I have to admit it's better than an article on a Pokemon or G.I. Joe character or an episode of South Park.) :-)Wolfview (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wolfview, if we were to determine which topics to cover on WP according to statistics it would be a much sadder place. You never know if a US Senator looking for info on African Americans in Davenport, Iowa is going to be one of the 3 people who looked at this article today. It's not how many read it, it is who reads it and what they use the information for. • Freechild talk  19:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep and Improve The fact that the Davenport’s African-American community is small is unimportant. We have a history in the U.S. of marginalizing various groups of people, especially the African–American community. They have a history and it should be told because in one way or another, their history and the history of any ethnic/national/racial group, is all our history. Further, there is a group that wants to build an African-American Heritage Center in the city, so there is something to their notability. One generally doesn’t build a building for nothing. There were some plans to renovate a building that was on the National Register of Historic Places before it collapsed last year (see the Q-C Times article).
 * Delete Synthesis and original research. There is also no automatic notability for "Ethnic/racial group X in location Y" just because they are enumerated in the US Census. Spare us from thousands of such criss-cross articles between locations and subpopulations. It would be more encyclopedic to include information about racial/ethnic groups in Davenport in the article on the city. Edison (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the first AfD nominator, and I still don't see them being a notable group in Davenport  C T J F 8 3 chat 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rereading the "keeps", I'm switching to neutral on the article.  C T J F 8 3 chat 21:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the largest national/ethnic groups in the city is the German community. The census bureau still shows that a significant percentage of people in the city can trace their ancestry to Germany. As significant as they are to the history of the city, their story as a separate group largely ends at World War I. Yet, Davenport wouldn’t be Davenport without them, and the same is true for the African-American community, who continue as a separate, distinguishable group today. By example, Davenport has a large number of properties on the National Register of Historic Places, especially for a city its size. All of them, it seems, are afforded a page on Wikipedia, and I have written many of them. Some of them, in my opinion, are not that significant individually while others are no longer standing. However, when taken together as a group or with similar structures across the country they tell a larger story on both a local and national level, about the architectural forms employed locally and the people who have used the structures over the years.

Some of the arguments above are preposterous. This article, can in fact, be part of the larger collection on African-American history. When dealing with Iowa the numbers will always be small on just about any topic that doesn’t deal with agriculture, but that should not be mistaken for unimportant. Some improvements need to be made to the article. One should look at some of the statements to see if they are true, and/or important. For example: "Bethel AME Church – a major church for African American Protestants in the area. Community Outreach Church of God in Christ – a major church for African American Pentecostals in the area." One can argue, and I would, that the claims made about the churches are unimportant and not helpful.

Unlike a bound encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows for an expansive look at people, places and a multitude of other subjects. I will allow that there needs to be limits. No one will write an article about me or any one of us (although some of you may be more important than I know), nor should they. However, people, in the larger sense, who generally do not get their story told, have an opportunity here. That opportunity should not be diminished. Farragutful (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article is, in effect, a POV fork of Davenport, Iowa. Most of the article sources are discussing race relations beyond just Davenport.  There is also a lot of completely unsource content in the article.  Other stuff is inuendo and conjecture. For example, "African Americans — the last hired — were the first to feel pain." There is no showing that employment/layoff policies were conducted in a racially discriminatory manner, but there is an undocumented implication that there was an unequal impact on the African American Davenport community.  In fact, all of Davenport suffered an economic decline. There is SYN here caused by writting about the deindustrialization of Davenport in this article as opposed to the main Davenport article. Similarly, "Within the school system during the 60s and 70s, the administrators had apparently instituted a policy whereby students who came from Mississippi were automatically held back a grade." Is this because the schools in the south were behind Iowa grade levels in academic achievement or because the administrators wanted black students to be physically larger than white students in the same grade? The article implies the latter without sources. Racepacket (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I !voted to delete before and it was one of the decisions I remember regretting later on. The article shows that this is a notable subject deserving of encyclopedic coverage.  Them  From  Space  00:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of the Keep arguments are based on "We Deserve An Article" sentiments which do not correspond to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Such arguments should be discounted by the closing administrator in favor of arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This type of implication reflects the systemic bias that keeps WP from effectively covering non-European American topics effectively. • Freechild talk  04:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of articles on African American topics. You are right that most of them could use improvement and more information. Wolfview (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment is also indicative of the systemic bias Edison's comment illustrates, Wolfview. This AfD has nothing to do with the race that is the topic of the article. This AfD doesn't even have to do with the topic of the article, per se. It is about the quality of the article. • Freechild talk  21:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An AfD should be about the suitability of the topic for an encyclopedia article, not the quality of the article. Wolfview (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: The diminishing of African Americans within AfDs targeting AA-related topics on WP is a noticeable patten that repeatedly appears. It needs to be addressed beyond this AfD. • Freechild talk  18:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't get too bent out of shape. I count 7 Keep votes and 3 Delete votes here, and most of the Keep votes are not subject to the generalized criticism that Edison raises, so they should not be discounted.  The article is gonna be kept, I am guessing. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not bent at all Doncram, just sharing an observation. I've written almost a dozen of these types of articles citing ethnicity x in city x, and there is a consistent pattern that European populations aren't put up for AfDs; however, articles about African Americans and Mexicans are. And then, in the course of the AfD, discriminatory comments like we read above are shared. It's a startling pattern, but consistent. I believe a larger conversation needs to be had about the implications of these types of AfDs, and that we need to have an intentional policy to address racist commentary used in AfDs, as the appearance of systemic bias is only strengthened by editors who use this rhetoric. • Freechild talk  21:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are perceiving racist commentary somewhere here, which i do not see at all. You commented twice to Wolfview, who further up stated "There is so much room for improvement in WP's coverage of African American history and culture. Why waste your time and effort on something so narrow in scope?", and just here that most of the articles "could use improvement and more information".  Wolfview did !vote Keep.  And I agree 100% with those comments:  using some judgment on where editorial effort will be most productive is wise.  About which Place X African-Americans type topics are more likely to be productive, i'll make some suggestions at Talk:African American Historic Places, mainly suggesting to work where there is an available good secondary resource to work from.  In fact it woulda been better for someone to focus on Lincoln, Nebraska than on Davenport, Iowa, based on what is available about historic places, anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Domcram, I think you're misunderstanding my concern. The veiled and overt race-focused commentary in this AfD is apparent in several editors' comments about the validity of the topic and their opinion about contributing editors. With that said, I'm not so concerned about this particular AfD as I am the continuous pattern that AfDs focused on African American-oriented topics draw out racist or otherwise discriminatory commentary, as well as undue attention to the topic in the first place. • Freechild talk  01:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't see what u apparently see. I do identify with editors concerned that "Topic cross City or State"-type articles may be manufactured in a non-encyclopedic way, which i was once concerned about regarding a completely different topic.  That's valid concern.  Anyhow, i did complete my suggestions over at Talk:African American Historic Places.  Probably won't comment more here.  Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I reject the approach that small towns require two separate articles one for [white] Davenport and a separate one for African American Davenport. There is no reason why the material from this article, to the extent that it is sourced, could not be incorporated into a single article on Davenport, Iowa. In a community this small, it is difficult to separate the "white" topics from the "black" topics. Indeed, much of the article focuses upon Bix Biederbecke who is a white German-American. Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't give the size of the town particular weight in determining the importance of related topics; rather, it weights according to those particular topics' notability. • Freechild talk  01:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Racepacket. Perhaps editors of the Davenport article could take note and incorporate at least summary material, and then link to this article as a "See also" or as a "main" link assuming everything in this article is not fully covered there. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that is me, Doncram. I agree with Racepacket, that we don't need an article on White Davenport and Black Davenport, and X race Davenport, one article on race is good for a city of this size, and I also disagree with Freechild this is some sort of racist issue with only Black/Hispanic articles being AfD and not white.  C T J F 8 3 chat 05:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm thinking this is exactly the kind of historical content that we should have on Wikipedia. Maybe change the name to "History of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa" or something like that... but the content is valid and notable and a credit to this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (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.