Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black history in Puerto Rico


 * 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 speedy close. This is an editorial issue and is being dealt as such. Pascal.Tesson 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Black history in Puerto Rico

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I suggest that portions of this article be "merged" into African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico, which is a well written and sourced article covering the subject of the latter. "African slave trade and immigartion to Puerto Rico" not only covers the black history of Puerto Rico, but is within Wikipedias standards and is nominated for GA status. "Black history of Puerto Rico is poorly written, tagged as unsourced, lacks references and is not within the high standards required by Wikipeida. Tony the Marine 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, and close - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. This AfD is a result of me suggesting a merger of some content from African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico into Black history in Puerto Rico. It is not a good idea to raise an AfD as a way to resolve an editing conflict, in particular without any discussion. Black history in Puerto Rico does have quality issues, but it is a separate, notable topic, with some overlap with African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico that a tried to resolve by proposing a partial merger. I proposed this and was met by the nominator with an unwarranted (and quite frankly, surprising and saddening) personal attack against me and in general has a certain WP:OWN flavor to issues around this page. Thanks! --Cerejota 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - The problem as I see it relies in how the merger was proposed, its clear that even if a sourced paragraph can have its refs disputed, African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico is a clearly superior article, the pocess followed here should have been to merge Black history in Puerto Rico into African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico and then rename it to something like Black history and African slave trade and inmigration to Puerto Rico, okay that might be a bit long, perhaps even merging the content of Black history in Puerto Rico, delete and rename African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico to that title, but if one thing is clear is that the merge should have been proposed the other way around. - 凶 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like your proposal, however by any measure of logic African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico is a part of Black history in Puerto Rico, not the other way around. That is the crux of the matter: the African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico overreaches its topic, by going into things other than the topic in the title (ie 10th generation black Puerto Ricans are hardly immigrants). In any case, I would support a merge If the resulting contents are similar to what African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico has as content, but titled Black history in Puerto Rico, which is a far more correct title. However, this creates an additional problem, which I think leads to the WP:OWN issues: Puerto Rican migrations. It is obvious to me that there is some resistance on the part of Tony to have "his" article have any other title, because it would break "his" Puerto Rican migrations template and pages. However, there is much more to Black history in Puerto Rico than just simple immigration and despicable slavery: there is a history, a sociology, and a political economy that has been explored in depth by reliable sources, and that this AfD denies a correct title to. As I stated on my merge proposal in Talk:Black history in Puerto Rico, this article is of bad quality, but that is an opportunity to fix it, not a reasons to delete it or merge it. I am not responsible if people act before reading what others say and fail to assume good faith and follow WP:DR. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Close Your concerns may be valid, however, they aren't deletion reasons. I suggest trying other forms of problem resolution, such as suggested at WP:DR.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close per above. Nom's reasons are valid reasons for cleanup not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment a proposal that I believe reaches consensus was submitted by nom . I think the nom should close this AfD and implement the proposal as soon as consensus is determined among involved editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:25, 30 July 2007 (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.