Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people


 * 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 keep maddening nomination. Normally I don't care for WP:SNOW but it fits here. Controversy is not a reason to delete. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Black people

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominating for Deletion Reason: How is this article notable? its about black people like it is a sort of animal or something "special" atleast many people her thinks so when you look at the discussion page. I think this should be deleted ,i also think its strange that it is a "massajman" as a rawmodel for black people and then celebrities and other more notable persons on the White people section. How is a massajman notable? lets here more opinions.should it be kept or deleted? --Matrix17 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

*Very Strong Delete I'm tired of all the edit wars and complaining on the talk page. I worked very hard to make sure everything was referenced and make sure all view points were heard, but people are never happy. If you look up the word black in the dictionary it is defined as a member of a dark skinned race especially one of African descent, and yet people are complaining that race is being mentioned in the article. It's like trying to write an article on Chritianity without being allowed to mention religion. One person keeps saying that even 4 year olds know what a black person is. If so, why the need for an article? There isn't much encyclopedic you can say about this topic that doesn't offend people and create edit wars, and most encyclopedias don't include this as a subject. They may include articles about the African diasporas, or skin color, or race, but not about black people. In general I don't think the wikipedia process works well on controversial topics because controversial topics attract people with extreme view points who are trying to push an agenda & such articles are always swinging from one extreme to another depending on which side become more numerous and more determined. Wikipedia works much better for less politically charged topics where editors can work together instead of against one another. In short how can you write an article on black people if editors can't even agree who black people are. You have some editors claiming only people of sub-Saharan African ancestry are black, you have other editors saying Oceanic ancestry is also black, and you have still others saying people from India are black. And don't even get me started on whether Afro-multiracials are black. Iseebias 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

* Very Strong Delete  I also VOTE for deletion. i think as iseebias thinks that it is to many people getting upset and angry on this article. and also on the white and caucasian articles. i dont think you can place PEOPLE in certain categories according to race. I dont see my dark coloured friend as my "black friend" but as only my friend. this article also has many strange opinions in it. and the massaj man is actually not representative for all people. so i say this article should be gone.Their are to many people thinking it shouldnt be deleted if you look at the discussion page to,and the Vanuatu man making food or somthing with a stick is just pure racism in the worst way.--Matrix17 19:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your nomination is your vote. No need to repeat it. --Ezeu 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This and White people are just magnets for extremist racists. We don't need these articles, they serve only for edit waring and POV pushing. Alun 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I dont see any of my friend as blacks or white for me people are people. with different personalities. my friend who originaly is from africa dont cook herr food with sticks and hunts in the woods with arrows and dont wear masai clothes like this article seemsto point out. I feel sorry that you cant see that my friend.--Matrix17 20:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Comment:Thats just the racist comments i mean. Do you actually think all africans eats with sticks? haha All this articles do is to cause arguments like this stupid arguments due to that people get hurt because of the feeling of being stuck into a certain category by a page written by all people.the vanuatu man making fire with a stick is the worst i have ever seen. pointing out people who is black as fools. my god.--Matrix17 20:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep yes there is racism on all articles. but deleting them is pretending that society does not see black and white. Unfortunately it does. If it didn't I would nominate delete.Muntuwandi 20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I cook with a stick, there is nothing wrong with cooking with a stick.Muntuwandi 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment what I am trying to illustrate is cultural relativity. What may offend one person may not be offensive to others. If you only have a western view, then there is a vast array of things that will be offensive. There are many people who still live a pre modern existence. to some any mention of them is racist. to others its just a way of life. but we digress. my point is if society sees black and white, why should we pretend not to. for example most social economic indicators still show differences between black and white.Muntuwandi 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Society sees black and white because we keep focusing on the distinction. There are many other distinctions: Tall-Short, heavy-slim, old-young, blue eyes-brown eyes, democrat-republican (many of these also show economic indicators)but society (at least in North America) is obsessed with dividing people into "blacks" and "whites".  The more attention we give these social constructions the more important they become. What a positive message it would send if wikipedia decided that "race" and/or skin color were of so little significane that they didn't even have articles on blacks and whitesIseebias 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a chicken and egg issue. The current situation is better than it used to be but the polarization still exists.Muntuwandi 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Its still wrong, anyway you put it.and just makes unnecssary arguments on the discussion page,Delete page.--Matrix17 20:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again in france no statistics are kept on black and white because they believe categorization s will cause ethnicism and hurt french society. but the 2005 civil unrest in France riots showed that france is far from being color blind. In fact many blacks in france say the prefer the United states model.Muntuwandi 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying? People are just genetically hardwired to discriminate against other races. That racism is 100% innate so there's no point even trying to get people to reconstruct their social reality. We should all just become obsessed with race and skin color and devote entire articles to it? Iseebias 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. based on the evidence not talking about race or color of skin is not necessarily a solution to racismMuntuwandi 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agreeing with iseebias. this page just inceasing the already excisting racism in the world. Get it deleted. i have altso put on deletion tags for, white people,caucasion race and asian people who are just as racist.--Matrix17 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. An encyclopedia should not delete information and historical accounts on what has been and what is. This and other similar article are not putting a value to a certain skin color or "race" but only describing the cultural heritage and history of mankind - with all the bad sides to it. If this article is deleted then we're on a slipping slope and it could lead to historical revisionism. Closing the eyes won't make any suggested problems disappear - only enlightenment can take care of that. Strangnet 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No having this article itself will lead to historical revisionism because extreme POVs on either side will selectively quote selectively chosen historians to push their POVs and since most people don't bother to read history books, they just get all their information from wikipedia, history will indeed be rewritten Iseebias 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On that basis, several articles about the nazi's warcrimes, racial hygiene, holocaust and similar should also be deleted. If they're taken out of context they could also be misused and misquoted. Just because people have heavily slanted POVs out there is one reason why articles like these should be there to inform and point to the facts in its sources. History is ugly in many cases, but deleting the accounts of them won't make them go away and the following generations won't learn from the previous one's mistakes. --Strangnet 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

comment the asian people article has been nominated for speedy keep. Muntuwandi 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The one that was speedy kept is the first nomination. The current one is still ongoing.--Ezeu 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The rationale for deleting this article is exceedingly flawed, verging on bad faith. Just because it is a contentious subject does not mean it should be deleted. It is a bonafide subject with encyclopedic value. --Ezeu 23:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Article is very biased. No mention of the enormous amount of genetic research showing race is real. Race is dismissed as some nutty outdated idea with little current support, when in reality, the idea that race doesn't exist is what's nutty.  Gottoupload 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bias is not a reason to delete, but to fix. See Deletion policy.--Ezeu 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no cause to vote for speedy deletion. Familiarize yourself with WP:CSD before flinging it around. JuJube 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - To repeat what I have said for this nominator's previous AfD initiations: I don't understand the nominator's reasoning at all, and see absolutely no violation of Wikipedia policy in letter or spirit with this topic. Nomination appears to be a case of unsupported WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is no reason for exclusion.  ◄    Zahakiel    ►   23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep "I don't like it" is not a valid nomination reason. Are going to have to do this for all of Matrix17 and Iseebias's two-man deletion campaign, or can they all just be speedy kept now per WP:SNOW? Wavy G 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't see any evidence of racism here, and I don't see the criteria for deletion of this article. Yes, in an ideal world (for most people) we would see people of all races similarly, but unfortunately that's not the way the world works, and Wikipedia needs to reflect that.  Eliminator JR   Talk  23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per nominator apparently thinking that all racial discussions are bad and hurt people's feelings. JuJube 23:58, 18 March 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.