Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black art


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Black art

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete : Fails the conditions of Disambiguation. Of the 20 terms listed on the page only one - Black art (theatre) - has the words "Black art" in it. However, it is a redirect to Glossary of magic (illusion). This discussion was first listed on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion page in section "Should this disambiguation page be deleted?" on 22 May 2017. No response has been given. Mitchumch (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the point is that those are all things that are called black arts. Therefore someone searching for them might search that term looking for one of those items. It doesn't need to be the only or main name. Lady  of  Shalott  04:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment According to WP:CONCEPTDAB which states, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page."


 * Disambiguation pages are only for articles with the same or nearly the same titles, not concepts. Mitchumch (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think this should become an article, then AfD is hardly the way to go. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am following the guidelines stated at Disambiguation in section "Deletion" which states, "Although disambiguation pages are not articles, a disambiguation page may be listed at Articles for deletion to discuss whether the disambiguation page should be deleted."


 * I never stated that I think this page should become an article. Please do not mistake the excerpt above from CONCEPTDAB as a reflection of my personal opinion.  I am only stating what this page is not - a disambiguation page.  If someone here chooses to make it an article page, then I have no objections.  But, that person is not me.  Mitchumch (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete there's no way the article can survive as a non-disambiguation page (it refers currently to black magic, criminal behaviors, African art, and a few extra nonsense things like Printing), and it doesn't work as a disambiguation page either. Possibly a speedy candidate as WP:G3 . Power~enwiki (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've just added Lee Perry's record label. With the theatre and the movement, there are now three topics with this name, or close enough to it, plus some of the others could be shown to be known as 'black art' I'm sure. It's trivially easy to find sources for this term equating to black magic, African-American art, espionage, etc. --Michig (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - and one of the major pieces of the movement is specifically named Black Art. I have added that to the list. Lady  of  Shalott  14:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's been sufficiently expanded, with the record label, theatrical term, artwork by Amiri Baraka, and redirect to African-American art. I'm not convinced by the very long list of everything that might be called the black arts, but that can be debated later. I'm a bit surprised that Wikipedia has no article on Rollo Ahmed (an associate of Dennis Wheatley) who wrote a book called The Black Art, which could be another entry on the list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment  I think there is a separate issue here.  Both of you don't appear to be aware of Disambiguation dos and don'ts.  Please read WP:CONCEPTDAB for the "Broad-concept articles" section of the Disambiguation.  Otherwise, you are wasting your time.  There has to be, at the very least, an existing article with the term "Black art" in the title for it to be listed on the disambiguation page.  Even then "Don't include every article containing the title" according to the Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Mitchumch (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment the expansion doesn't actually improve the article. It's still a disambiguation page with multiple problems and no plausible single redirect target. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. After the expansion this dab page contains entries for at least three topics that are unequivocally and straightforwardly known as "Black art". Any potential issues with the page should be addressed via editing. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the page is now in good enough shape that I strike my previous delete vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I second Power~enwiki new position. I strike my previous delete vote on the condition that new violations of WP:NAMELIST and WP:DABRELATED do not reappear. Mitchumch (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you withdrawing your nomination then? Lady  of  Shalott  03:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So long as that page adheres to Disambiguation dos and don'ts and Disambiguation. Mitchumch (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2017 (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.