Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Man


 * 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 delete. W.marsh 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Black Man
There's nothing in this vague and poorly sourced stub that isn't already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. We don't need a separate article for every term for demons. wikipediatrix 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, and verify that this term is mentioned in the Demon article as a synonym. Of perhaps greater concern is the fact that anybody searching for "black man" will get an article about demons with a note redirecting to Black people.  I know Wikipedia isn't meant to be P.C., but we can at least show tact. - b o b b y  19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Already covered in the Demon article. Add nothing to Wikipedia but confusion and unnecessary offensiveness. OfficeGirl 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim   23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to keep. However, it is already mentioned somewhere. I thought Demon. Needle in a haystack trying to find it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim   13:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Harmless, verifiable stub. Black men are not mentioned in Demon.-- Hús  ö  nd  05:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And there's no evidence that they should be. So far this article has only one valid reference, whose only contribution is that someone in the Salem Witch Trials allegedly said "They saw the spectre of a black man bending over the accused". That's not enough to justify an article, a merge, or anything. wikipediatrix 14:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Black man is not a name for a demon, it is a description, if you read the source material. As such it has no notablity.  Bejnar 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --164.107.92.120 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a specific term, should be kept.--Signor 04:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree, a specific term is worth keeping. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and per Bejnar's explanation. Postdlf 03:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would be offended if the article was a hoax. - GilliamJF 05:02, 7 November 2006 (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.