Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Americans in the United States Congress (0th nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --&mdash;jiy (talk) 11:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

African Americans in the United States Congress

 * Wikipedia does not include articles of loosely associated topics. The property of being African-American and the property of being in Congress have no connection; this article is useless and nonencyclopedic. Delete it. 64.109.253.204 04:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, since the strugle for African Americans to even get to Congress in the early days need to documented. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. That could be included as a sentence then in an article about African-Americans, but the fact is African-Americans and Congressmen have no connection so there should not be an article associating the two. 64.109.253.204 04:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. The article lists that once African Americans were able to go to Congress, their election depended on where they were located, the motivations behind the Congressmen and also political affliations. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article. Why shouldn't we? Being black and being in congress may not be connected but you have to say it was a struggle for them to get there. Getting rid of this is kinda like getting rid of an article about women's suffrage. Being a woman and voting aren't connected either. Redwolf24 04:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Should there then be an article about every struggle? 64.109.253.204 04:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Imagine if you merged everything that happened to African American and American Women into an article about American struggles. That will get quite long, and many people will not see the article due to size length. So, you branch off the article into sub-articles (Desegregation of American Schools, Women's Sufferage Movement, Civil Rights Movement, Equal Rights Amendment). That is all this article is: focusing on one aspect of the strugle of African Americans to achieve parity in the United States. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep 64.109.253.204 has clear bias against multi-racial categories and articles, as displayed in their contribs. These articles are important part of history for all peoples.  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  04:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Who, that is just not true and I wish for you to apologize. 64.109.253.204 04:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (Comments taken to user talk page) With the set of recent Vfd/Cfd's, they seemed to fit a certain profile, even with the given reasoning, such articles as this have very high historic value. In order to keep from making the same mistakes in the future, we have to have good records of the past, even if they contain segregated society. There was no miscontent meant towards 64.109.253.204.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  04:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only nominated because 64.109.253.204 has failed to read and understand WP:POINT, and is offended because an article of his is on VfD right now. Thus he has chosen to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.&mdash;chris.lawson (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Clawson has no knowledge as to why I created this vote for deletion. This article was brought to my attention and it did not make sense, the VfD comments from one of my article seemed to make more sense for this article than my article, so I put a VfD here. 64.109.253.204 04:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Normally I'd agree with the nominator's rationale, but this specific intersection of political office and race is extremely historically significant, has been the focused topic of volumes of academic work, and continues to be the subject of court cases over legislative redistricting based on racial divisions.  Postdlf 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously, quite a good artice, suspect bad faith nomination. One point: was there ever a constitutional bar at federal level on AAs sitting in Congress (maybe some state laws prevented it)? PatGallacher 12:03, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a good article, it's been around for a year and a half, and the topic of racial minority representation in government is a legitimate one. Bad faith nomination in the extreme. --PHenry 20:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - but give it a better (shorter) name. -- The Time Killer
 * Keep, no reason for this to have been nominated for deletion. Xaa 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about Xaa? I gave a reason. Did you not even read this? 64.108.212.56 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment These topics are important. After coming across this VfD and noticing similar pages for other minorities were absent, I started Asian Pacific Americans in the United States Congress and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus so that there is a more balanced documentation of minorities in the U.S. Congress. A similar page for Hispanics should be created. &mdash;jiy (talk) 11:24, August 22, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.