Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African american men in computer science


 * 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 Prune and merge. Arguments to delete based on redlinks don't really address NLIST but we clearly cannot have a directory masquerading as a list either. So I'm moving both lists to draft space for someone to fix up into a single sourced list of notable people that can be moved back into mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

African american men in computer science

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

African american men in computer science, and it's counterpart African American women in computer science are lists of non-notable people, on this list because they have achieved a Ph.D. While that is no small undertaking, particularly in an underrepresented demographic in the computer science industry, that does not equate to Wikipedia notability. An argument could be made for an article to generally discuss the underrepresentation of African-Americans in the Computer Sciences Industries, but a blanket list of those who have achieved a Ph.D. in that field is not the way to go about it. Further, there are some BLP issues, as these are effectively unsourced or poorly sourced lists of people. kelapstick(bainuu) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep BOTH This list is no different from The List of Computer Scientists. If these lists are deleted then we should start the process of removing ALL similar lists on Wikipedia. --Tygrandison (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC) — Tygrandison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment There is a HUGE difference, including the fact that the list of computer scientists you mention is a list of NOTABLE scientists with articles about them, not a collection of scientists who are not yet notable but happen to share traits defined by the author of the list. Also, I note your unsigned contribution is one of only two edits you have made, both contesting deletion of these articles. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the heads up on the signature. Happy to sign anything. A few random examples: Monica Lam and Andrew Chi-Chih Yao are no more 'notable' than a lot of computer scientists I know. Your generalization, without evidence or context, is at the heart of this issue. Factually answer why this list is not notable in comparison to all the other lists that myself other commenters have mentioned. I challenge you to Google a random sample of 20 from each of these pages and do the same for the other lists mentioned and do a 'notability' comparison on the facts. --Tygrandison (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew Yao? Who won not only the Knuth Prize, but the Turing Award, the "Nobel Prize of computing"? Monica Lam, co-author of Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools, the definitive textbook on what is arguably the definitive tool of computer programming? Please. If any of the people on this list have won either of those prizes, or co-written one of the definitive works used by basically all CS students, then they should definitely have articles. Have they? --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough reliable 2nd or 3rd party sources to justify all the people on this list. Fails WP:N The article is essentially a regurgitation of the list from Reference #1. At most reference #1 could be noted in Digital divide, which FWIW, is not very well written. Tapered (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Both I actually considered nominating African American women in computer science for deletion shortly after it was created, but with no apparent precendent on this type of page, I wasn't sure it was appropriate and decided to do nothing instead. However, my original concern (and my reason for !voting delete) is that we would never have an article called Caucasian American women in computer science, and while I understand African American's are a minority, that does not somehow make them anymore notable than the majority population. In the same regard that it's not appropriate to assume white people are more notable for being a majority, it's not appropriate to assume black people are more notable because they are a minority. So, if we keep this article, than the counterpart article for every race/demographic would also be appropriate, imagine the list of all those people with PhD's!!! I also would like to point out that the creator of these articles included themselves on the list at African American women in computer science, one Quincy K. Brown. So there are also COI issues. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (See below). The page was created as a part of [an event which sought to highlight the collective role of African-Americans in STEM fields; several attendees were notable in STEM fields in their own right. Dr. Brown was an invited guest at the event who was gracious enough to share her expertise and get this started, with my assistance. We did carefully explain that writing one's autobiography was not appropriate. Having a PhD start the list of PhDs seemed logical enough to me-- is this really some sort of problem? --[[User:Djembayz|Djembayz]] (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said it was a problem, I was merely pointing out a possible conflict of interest, Wikipedia policy doesn't forbid someone with a COI from editing a topic, it is simply discouraged, and will be met with a higher level of scrutiny, so these editors should edit extremely prudently. That being said, my issue with this article is still that it is a list of non-notable people. Whereas an article discussing African Americans role in computer science would be acceptable, as would a list of notable African Americans in computer science. But a list of EVERY African American who has ever received a PhD in the field seems a little silly, like I said, they could earn a degree in that field and then not contribute a thing to the field afterword. The inclusion of EVERY African American with a PhD is exactly what causes this article to fail WP:LISTN, if the list was made up of all notable folks, it would easily pass WP:LISTN. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete Both Merge and clean per David Eppstein's solution Almost all use none at all, self-published, or otherwise questionable sources. One heavily used source reads: "This list is based in part on a list compiled by Dr. Scott Williams, Professor of Mathematics at State University of New York at Buffalo: 'Computer Scientists of the African Diaspora'. SUNY Buffalo - Mathematicians of the African Diaspora. 2008. Retrieved 2015-02-25. As of 2008, Dr. Scott considered his list to be a complete list of all the known African Americans holding PhDs in computer science."This is a personal website, not a reliable source. Also, it's talking about the African Diaspora, not African Americans. Lastly, if it remains, there's plenty of names to add, begging the question of reliability for his website and the other source about the number in academia, so I'll just leave these lists here:   &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you are finding more recent information! If you can find a current source with listings and exact numbers of African American CS PhDs, that would certainly be a help in improving the page. Do note that people attending an editathon have to work with what they have access to on the spot, and rely on others to improve what they have started afterwards.
 * Also, the fact that you do not realize why the first African American PhD, or the number of African Americans in a profession is particularly significant is actually an encouraging sign. African Americans in the US were specifically barred from certain higher educational institutions, and thus from certain professions under segregation in the US. Other minorities did not always face the same levels of discrimination as African Americans. For people of a certain age in the US, it goes without saying that the moment when an educational institution or a profession actually opens up for everyone to participate is when the African Americans are welcomed. --Djembayz (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep for Upcoming Event. This is needed for Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Tech LadyMafia Edit-a-thon, April 2015: Women in Tech, coming up next Friday. Also, I don't understand why you think a computer science professor would be an unreliable source for names of other colleagues in the field. This is a pretty small group of people, most of whom would know each other, and most of whom would only be documented in this fashion. We're not talking about writing individual articles for all of the people on the list, we're talking about a baseline list that gives us something to build on for an underrepresented group, for whom few sources are available. Please note that it is sufficiently rare for African American women to receive doctorates in computer science that we were urged to further develop this topic at an editathon oh the Lost History of African Americans in STEM fields with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Tue Feb 24. Although we all hope that the day will come when an African American getting a PhD in computer science is an everyday occurence, even in 2013 a women were still in the process of breaking the color barrier when the first African American woman received CS PhD at an institution the size of Michigan State. Fifty-six practitioners in a field as of 2008 is not very many!


 * I would hope that Wikipedia would view breaking the color barrier as a notable activity, because if we don't, it doesn't speak very well for our commitment to diversity. --Djembayz (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge into a single list of African-American computer scientists, and delete all non-bluelinked entries. The low representation of African-Americans in computer science is well-known, problematic, and not likely to be difficult to find sources for (e.g. Google gives me 100k hits for the exact phrase "African-American computer scientists"). The low representation of women in computer science is also well known, problematic, and easily sourced. But it's not clear to me that when we start intersecting categories like this, that we still have notability: what are the issues that specifically affect African-American men in computer science, but are not common to African-American men in other STEM fields, or to other African-American computer scientists? And where do we list the computer scientists who don't identify as part of the traditional gender scale (if any of those happen also to be African-American)? Additionally, with many unsourced redlinked and unlinked entries (and many more people that could be added), we have issues with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Incidentally, these lists are currently far from complete: several additional names can be found by searching Wikipedia for the phrases "African-American" and "computer scientist". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I've read in the literature, the big issue that specifically affects African-American men in computer science is lack of access to computers before entering college. --Djembayz (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete both non-notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this ridiculous list of people who don't meet WP's notability guidelines. Eric   Corbett  12:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator's points. Most importantly, I do not think the article has shown that merely being an African American with a PhD in CS is notable enough for other Reliable sources to cover this list. As sources we have one survey that lists tenure-track professors (which is not the same as PhD in CS; there are plenty of CS PhDs that aren't professors), and one personal web page, that lists "The African Diaspora" (which is not the same as African-Americans - for example it lists at least one Nigerian). And we have the personal say so of a volunteer. So basically this list is Original research. Give two articles in Reliable sources that make such a list, and I'll change my opinion. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete While a PhD is highly significant especially in computer science where such a degree is not needed to work in the field, still education in itself isn't notable per Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC))
 * Delete as nominated. Whether an individual is notable or not is not based on ethnicity; notability must be asserted through Wikipedia guidelines for each individual on the list FIRST, then a list should be derived from the articles of notable individuals. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep My reading of WP:LISTN is that notability applies to the list as a whole, not the individual entries. So the notability, or lack thereof, of any of these people on either list is not relevant; which negates many of the deletion arguments made here.  I can't see how BLP applies to a simple list of names; they aren't biographies and contain no potentially libelous information.  The topic is one that has plausibly been discussed as a group in reliable sources.  Whatever technical flaws that remain with the lists are fixable over time: the lists have potential.  Further, the nominator states "An argument could be made for an article to generally discuss the underrepresentation of African-Americans in the Computer Sciences Industries".  While this isn't the end of that process, it is a part of that and a list often serves as the backbone for creating relevant articles around a topic.  Some of these names may lead to future biographical articles (not, I repeat, that that is necessary under Wikipedia policy).  I would say that extends the "has potential" argument from just the two lists under discussion to the entire topic group that may, potentially, exist one day. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, but right now the article doesn't show what WP:LISTN requires, which is that reliable sources have actually written about African American PhDs in CS as such. Are there sources for that? I've read plenty of articles about underrepresentation of various groups in CS. But none that tried to give a list of PhDs. CS is a field in which having a PhD isn't nearly as important as in some others. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added some references to show that this is a subject of discussion. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search for more citations but I think this is ample to show that they exist.  Wiki articles don't need to be perfect right away, they just need potential for future improvement, which I hope I have demonstrated.  I have no opinion on merging the lists.  I don't think unlinked names should be removed: it is not required at all under Wikipedia policy, it would be counter-productive to just eliminate the seeds of potential future articles, and it is unnecessary given the apparently small number of African-Americans with CS doctorates in the US. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and now some of them have been removed for spurious reasons by Padenton. Nevertheless, there are several publications that make a point of Computer Science PhD's and African-Americans; which is enough to support my point.  There's another at insidehighered.com.  A table of Africa-American PhD's vs. overall award for the year could probably be built using the NSF data and would be relevant to the topic. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several data sources such as the Taulbee Report and NSF that annually report data on the topic of these pages. These can easily be added to the pages as sources. It's also worth noting that until recently, when tech companies began reporting demographic data, there was little public discussion of the lack of minority presence in CS see here, here, and here for very recent articles on the topic.


 * Keep per LISTN and what AdamBMorgan said. Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support a merge, too, per David Eppstein. See List of African-American inventors and scientists (includes men and women). Lightbreather (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Only includes those that have individual notability, instead of just claiming that being an AA inventor or scientist is enough. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with David Eppstein's solution, which I feel is in line with the people lists Wikipedia already has, and have changed my delete both vote above accordingly. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears that we have African-American Baseball Coaches, African American Writers, African-American Pornographic Actors. We have List Of Jewish-American computer scientists. It’s interesting that we’re starting here, isn’t it?  MarkBernstein (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That there are other rubbish articles is no reason to add to the collection. Eric   Corbett  18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All those are lists of people with Wikipedia entries in their own right, instead of claiming that merely being an AA computer scientist is worthy of mention. No objection to having a list of African American computer scientists that are individually notable. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A list of African-American computer scientists would be appropriate if the list was made up of African-American computer scientists who had Wikipedia articles, as has been the standard for our lists of people articles for years. A list of people who do not have Wikipedia articles is inappropriate, regardless of ethnicity and/or PhD status.  I am not sure what you are suggesting by saying it is interesting we are starting here.--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assuming bad faith of everyone who voted delete, before you start accusing everyone of being racist, it would be nice if you did your homework, as others have pointed out, those lists are made up of notable individuals, whereas this is just a list of people with degrees, which means what? I can get a PhD in computer science and then decide to do absolutely nothing with it, does that make me notable? There is a reason this list was nominated and not those others, I think your interesting comment says more about you than any of us. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You’re certainly welcome to your opinion! I'm not asserting that anyone is acting in bad faith, much less that they are racist; I'm reminding people that the optics here are awkward at best. In point of fact, our coverage of baseball coaches and pornographic actors is really unequalled, where our coverage of scientists and engineers is less so; it might be a good idea to spend some time with this list to ensure that every redlink figure on the list really ought to be. Just saying.... MarkBernstein (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, and without looking for statistics, I am sure you are correct, computer scientists and academics are underrepresented occupations on Wikipedia. Naturally these sorts of lists can be included within Wikipedia, and if you, or someone else cares to work these lists into a decent article that meets the Heyman Standard, I would be glad to change my position.  As mentioned, blue linked articles grouped by occupation (and/or ethnicity) are generally acceptable, but blanket lists of non-notable people are not, and that is what we have here. Also worthy of note, the deletion of these versions of the article does not prelude their recreation according to Wikipedia standards. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mark, I should apologize, I obviously just boomeranged myself right in the face, after re-reading your initial statement, and your follow up explanation, I was clearly the one jumping to conclusions and assuming bad faith on your part. I focused too much on the word interesting and thought you were saying this was only nominated as a racial prejudice. My sincere apologies, I tend to do stupid things frequently, Wikipedia can be a humbling experience at times. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Your initial argument is an "Aunt Minnie Argument," courtesy of the great Jewish film director, Billy Wilder--concerning Marilyn Monroe. He said, "My Aunt Minnie would always be punctual and never hold up production, but who would pay to see my Aunt Minnie?" He was comparing Ms. Monroe to his wonderful, virtuous Aunt Minnie. Marilyn Monroe had WP:N. Aunt Minnie didn't. Tell me who gets an article. Thus it is that Black porno 'actors' have articles, and black PhDs in computer science don't. Then again neither did my beloved black history professor (also a PhD). Wikipedia articles are not a meritocracy. Tapered (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge into a joint African-American computer scientist article per David Eppstein. The gender separation makes little sense in this case. Peter Isotalo 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LISTN - As noted previously, this page was created as part of the White House Edit-a-thon Lost History of African Americans in STEM fields with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Tue Feb 24.. The goal for creating the pages was not to be a list for the sake of creating a list but to be an article/list about individual African Americans in Computer Science, per se but on the group as a collective. Thus, it is the grouping of the members in the broader context that is notable. The purpose creating separate pages was to have the women's list include mention of intersectionality and issues that are unique to individuals who are women in a male dominated field and African Americans.  There are numerous articles on the topic, . The National Academies Press published a report on the topic of Women of Color in Academia  that are focused on the topic intersectionality and women of color in STEM as well as those that highlight the issue in Computer Science , . Furthermore the National Science Foundation publishes a report focused on Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering that includes data on minority women . The data on the pages can be gathered using national databases. The page does need to be updated to reflect the importance and unique experiences of African American Women in CS.  Per WP:LISTN, " Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." The articles have potential WP:HASPOT and can be improved.  IQuincykbrown (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)quincykbrown
 * Move to project space as someone mentioned that the lists were created due to an event about our coverage of racial minorities and women in STEM. The argument for deletion is that the black people on the lists are not notable. Some may be notable, but do not have articles due to systemic bias, such as limited interest from Wikipedians or reliable sources that are difficult to access. Perhaps two lists in mainspace is not the best way to deal with this important issue (unequal opportunities and imbalanced coverage), but until a better alternative is developed, deleting the lists will just reinforce racism and sexism, both on Wikipedia and in STEM. --Hildanknight (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be appropriate if it was plausible to believe that most or many of the names would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. On the contrary, the vast majority of PhD holders do not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Deleting non-notable entries in a list doesn't reinforce racism or sexism. When the articles are finally created, I'm sure the authors (or someone else) will add them to the list.  &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing that so many argue that breaking the color bar is not a notable activity. We need some explicit changes to policy on this. Where do we propose them? --Djembayz (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * at WP:VPP. It's less breaking a 'color bar', more being interested in a specific field and putting in the effort to complete a PhD. It's an issue of systemic bias, not racism (anymore). Especially in CS (moreso than other STEM fields), there's also an economic component. A PhD can take 5-7 years living with little money, while every CS can get the top-paying jobs for new college grads, and by getting the work experience instead, not only will they have made on average $250,000-$350,000 more during those years, their work experience can be more valuable than a PhD. No disrespect intended towards any participants here who completed the gauntlet, but while in other science fields (i.e. Chemistry, Physics) students are expected far more often to take their education to the master's/doctorate level, CS students have much lower rates of continuing to the PhD. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  14:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Racism and sexism have not magically disappeared. Poor black and female representation in computer science is a real and important issue. Black and female contributions to computer science is a real and important issue. Barriers that black people and females face in computer science is a real and important issue. Could you suggest (and actually contribute to) good approaches for dealing with these real and important issues, since these two lists are clearly bad approaches? If the list is moved to project space, would you still argue that it should be deleted or would you let the community determine which people on the list are indeed notable? Being the first black graduate from a historically segregated university or an advocate for fellow female computer scientists could attract additional coverage, which increases notability. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When did it become part of Wikipedia's brief to deal with whatever biases may or may not exist in the field of computer science? Eric   Corbett  16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, Wikipedia is not in a position to improve black and female representation in computer science, but we certainly can (and should) improve our coverage of these real and important issues. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But this isn't an article about those issues, it's simply a list of largely non-notable people who happen to have a PhD. Eric   Corbett  17:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection to moving list to project space.--GRuban (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and KeepListing of prominent African Americans in computer science. Notable list of academics of an under represented group an a tough underreprented field of phds. Similiar fields exist including  CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But there's a world of difference between the two lists. Is it really necessary to point out that the mere possession of a PhD does not make one either an academic or a computer scientist? Eric   Corbett  16:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment And by your example, you prove our point. The list you linked to is a list of Medal of Honor Recipients, notable by their accomplishments by definition; compiling a list of inherently notable people is wonderful!  Establish notability of these subjects, create their articles, and THEN we make a list.  Easy, peasy. Otherwise, it's just a list of non-notable people. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There are quite a few issues raised in these discussions however the page has been updated to include references related to African American women in CS. The topic of African American Women in Computer Science is a notable topic. As listed in the [|general notability guidline] ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."), African American women in CS have been written about in reliable sources and the issue is easily verifiable. The sources are secondary, e.g. National Academies, and independent. Quincykbrown (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)quincykbrown
 * My feeling here is that all of your arguments would be excellent arguments for an article specifically discussing the general topic of African Americans in CS, such an article could discuss the biases and so forth, but it still doesn't make any sense to have a huge list of mostly non-notable people. No prejudice against a list of notable African American computer scientists (even without the qualifier of earning a PhD), also no prejudice against moving this to the project page for a major overhaul and a better approach to discussing these important topics. As it is though, this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, in my opinion. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mostly unsourced, poorly defined criteria for inclusion and essentially a listing of non-notable people that is little more than a directory. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete List of people who don't meet WP's notability guidelines.  Vast majority would be deleted from the list per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As per usual criteria for lists, WP:LINK them all. Then delete all red links. Simples. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete in this form but allow userfication to merge and limit to notable people. As it is, this is merely a directory of living but not notable people, with very dubious sourcing in terms of WP:BLP.  Sandstein   19:51, 16 April 2015 (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.