Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people in Australia


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Black people in Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. The assertion that the term "black" in an Australian context uniquely describes sub-Saharan Africans is a ridiculous claim and undermines the entire basis of the article. Digestible (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Digestible (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an ill-conceived and unreferenced article that asserts a title having no common understanding. "Black people" is not a label of convenience. To dissociate it from Aboriginal and Torres Strait people is particularly offensive. The limited nature of the content reinforces stereotypes that "black people" can only sing and play sport. WWGB (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with all of the above. The 73 other articles in Category:Ethnic groups in Australia more than adequately cover whatever this article attempts to do.  If it was to be kept, it would need a complete rewrite as excluding Aboriginal Australians from the scope is mind-blowingly US-centric.The-Pope (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aren't we all of African descent? Classifying by skin colour sounds like South Africa in 1960. Not a good title or definition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: All above comments. Per Criterion G10. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant. Rklawton (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and probably Speedy Keep (specifically see point 2, subpoint 4). If using "Black" in the name is an issue, then begin a Requested move. AFD is not an appropriate venue for resolving content disputes. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it could be moved to. "Black" isn't the only problem. Based on what I see as the originator's goals, it maybe should be "People who live in Australia who have darkish skin, who have ancestors who came originally from sub-Saharan Africa who also lived in the Caribbean or USA or other places near there, and who emigrated to Australia at some stage." It's a very unclear goal based largely on a perceived racial grouping in itself based on skin colour. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * African Diaspora is fairly well defined. Personally, I think that it's great that you think such a grouping is unclear, but the fact is that most of the rest of the world doesn't. Your stated view here (unfortunately) seems to be a fringe view, although it's certainly a nice one, which I hope spreads! — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 05:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the originator meant African Diaspora, why didn't he say so? Black people in Australia has multiple meanings and connotations, especially within Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask him\her, but I would note that African diaspora is on the page... anyway, I added a ref to the lead, which was easy enough to locate (I did it between my reply above and this one, after all). Just goes to show, doing a little actual work often leads to positive results. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 05:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Despite the sarcasm, you have just about convinced me that there may be a topic somewhere around this subject that's worth having, but having seen the posts below I shall for the moment leave Mattinbgn's comments to stand to refelct my concerns well. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the sarcasm. The only excuse that I have is that I'm pretty tired, and I'm still kind of pissed that the New Jersey Devils lost tonight, which unfortunately seems to be bleeding over a little into my comments here on Wikipedia. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted. :-)  I have similar problems when the Geelong Cats lose, although they done quite nicely lately. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me how this source supports this statement "Black people in Australia are designations used for people of African descent who reside in Australia."? The statement is untrue and the source (at least what I can see here for example) does not support the statement. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read through it Matt... let's see... pages 6, 9-11, 13 & 14, (especially) 18 & 19, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32, 36, and others all mention ethnic groupings based on or around peoples of African decent. I don't dispute the fact that the term "Black" is probably meaningless (if not confusing) in Australia, which is why I suggested using WP:RM above. If there is no serious concern with the potential move though, which seems possible based on this discussion, then just move and edit the article without bothering with the RM process. The problem here simply seems to be with one word, so just change it. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 06:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I must oppose this suggestion. I do not believe that it's appropriate even to setup a redirect on that article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording of the article title isn't the real issue here, but the overlap between this and African Australian. Could you comment on that? Would you recommend Merge instead of keep? Donama (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment As an aside, if it's decided that this AfD is clear enough to establish a precedent, the same thing should probably happen to Black people in Scotland. Glass  Cobra  05:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree, because the Black people in Scotland article refers to the African diaspora present in Scotland, whereas this article does not (because African Australian already covers that). Donama (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per all the above. Nothing else left to say. Repeating what they have said would be redundant, as this article is.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not opposed to an article based around the theme that the original author intends and it seems silly to me to insist the topic can't be defined. That said, this article, with a grossly misleading name, is not a good place to start. The article would need to be completely rewritten to be saved. The lede is completely unsourced (and flat out wrong, the term "black" is primarily used to describe ATSI people in Australia with a qualifier needed to describe black people of African descent) and the "list" is not very useful. A good article on this topic would not include anything in this current version so best to delete it and let someone else try again, perhaps under a more appropriate name. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the usage of the term is problematic as it has serious ambiguity in its usage - support Mattinbgn's suggestion, if it was to be done with adequate understanding of the Australian context it needs a complete re-start. SatuSuro 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep I don't really know what to do here. This could form the basis of a good article, or at the very least, a section in African diaspora .. but I realize that the current title is problematic.  I'm not Australian, but I do know that Aboriginals have referred to themselves as black throughout history and even in recent times (there is a poem sometimes attributed to Rob Riley that ends with the line ...but the blackman keeps it in his head.)  This looks like it will end as a delete, but I encourage the creator of the article to work with others in the hopes of getting his list of Africans into an article that can be mutually agreed upon.  (I notice African Australian exists, but it notes that half of Africans in Australia are whites from S Africa).   ♥  Soap  ♥  14:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Explicitly stating keep now because I feel deleting the article only to re-create the content somewhere else would be an unnecessary step and an insult to the article creator. Additionally, to the people saying the article is an attack page because it portrays Africans as being nothing but musicians and atheletes, we really really shouldn't be deleting an article just because it portrays a stereotype, so long as the information is nonetheless true.   Lastly, I'm not aware of any rule stating that lists of articles need references ... but if there is such a rule now, refs could easily be added since every article is either a blue link or a stub (for those of us who have stub highlighting turned on), and for the same reasn I don't see any validity to the argument that this article doesn't pass notability, as the people on it certainly do.   ♥  Soap  ♥  14:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of your logic except for your initial statement. I don't think there is any unique content (that's not already at African Australian) in this article that it would be recreated elsewhere. Please consider the article again... What not-already-covered topics/points is it bringing to the attention of the reader? Donama (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The list, which is what I see as the core of the article ... even if the introduction is wrong (which I agree it is). African Australian has a collage of four people in the infobox, but unlike most other articles of its type it lacks a longer list of famous and notable African Australians (be they of Bantu descent or otherwise).   —  Soap  —  14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that this article is the same topic as African Australian. Would you support a Merge with that instead of Keep so that the information is not lost but placed at a more sensible (universally understandable) location? Donama (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really believe in !voting "merge" on an AfD. To me, the important thing is whether the article gets deleted or not ... a merge in which the original article is deleted is different than a merge in which the article is simply redirected because in the case of deletion there is no way for editors to look back at the original content to help them work it into the text of the new article.  Even aside from that, though, I am not sure that African Australian would be the best place for this information to go, though, as this "black Australian" category includes people whose ancestry is from the Caribbean.  So I cant say Im in favor of a merger with no particularly good article to merge it to.   —  Soap  —  23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I think that the whole premise that "The term 'Black people in Australia' does not refer to the Aboriginals" but that it does refer to "people of African descent who reside in Australia" is ridiculous, but this article is essentially a vehicle for a very specific list. As others have pointed out,  African Australian, as written, encompasses black and white persons who have immigrated in from the African continent, or have ancestors who did.  If one must do the "this one's black, but that one isn't" thing, it would be more appropriate in that article. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sorry for my fast run to speedy on this. I now recommend delete. The page I think almost meets G10, but it doesn't fully meet it. I have reread the page. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 19:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (possibly after merge to African Australian but I'd go with the general consensus on whether that should be done). My rationale is along the same lines as User:The-Pope. The concept of the article is not encyclopaedic. It's unclear to me what "Black people in Australia" really means and as far as I know there is no standard definition for that phrase at all. The linked references in the article as it stands did not help. If the concept refers to the African diaspora in Australia then there is already a good article existing for that purpose at African immigrants to Australia (redirects to African Australian). Donama (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated as per User:Soap's comments on why it is a bad idea to vote merge (and others comment on why a redirect is problematic).Donama (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Change !vote to delete after possibly moving some material to African Australian. The whole lede is total bollocks (see article for deletion higher up). The term "black people" is simply not used in that sense. Australians do not have the same obsession with skin colour as people from the US do. Just coming from Africa is good enough, without dividibg them up into two groups "white" and "black". -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aboriginal people are dark skinned, and most definitely not African. Strongly oppose a merge and redirect. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree what you say about Aboriginal people, but this article is not about them. The lists could easily be added to African Australian. If you do not like the name of the redirect, then I guess we could delete it, but the redirect would keep the history. - Bduke   (Discussion)  09:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a big problem with a redirect such as this. Redirecting "Black people in Australia" to "African Australians" would, to be frank, potentially inflammatory and quite possibly insulting to many Australian Aborigines, a people who are intensely proud of their culture and connection with the land. To redirect here would be an egregious violation of NPOV policy. I cannot support this compromise. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just Aborigines that would be insulted. Every " people in Australia" article is problematic. While some other countries may insist on dividing their peoples according to colour or ethnicity, it's not something that is done by Australians. You're either Australian or you're not, with the default assumption being that you're Australian. Colour has never been an issue. Even with recent American influence in this area this is not the case. An "African Australian" can be any colour they want, even white, unlike an African American, where a white African immigrant cannot be African American while a black American who has never been outside of the continental U.S. can. If it has to exist, Black people in Australia should represent all black people in Australia, not just a select few, and a redirect needs to point to an article that does this. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with pretty much everything here, except the fact that it's never been an issue. Sadly, it has been. But I agree that it is not the current mainstream view. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone else pointed out, unless you want this article to redirect to African Australian (leaving this problematic title a problem), you'd need to vote Delete rather than Merge. Correcting my own vote in accordance with that to make reaching consensus easier. Donama (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. I'm an Australian, and this entire article is ridiculous. What are we going to do, create Yellow people in Australia or White people in Australia? Honestly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? We could provide links to the article of every white Australian who has an article on Wikipedia. Sound silly? Of course it does but that's exactly what this article is, and nothing more. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering where Australians of Maori and Pacific Islander backgrounds fit into all of this? They're kind of blackish. And there's a black guy runs a great restaurant down the road. He's Fijian, of Indian ancestry. Oh, differentiating by skin colour is just so stupid in a country like Australia. And then there's the teenagers I know who are descendants of a Tasmanian Aboriginal grandmother and an American negro sailor grandfather. (I make no apology for using the word negro. It's the word the kids use because that's what he was known as at the time, with no insult or offence involved.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew a guy who has Malaysian heritage, and when he tanned he literally became so dark people either didn't recognise him or misguessed his parent's nationality (I say this because he was born in Australia and is a full natural born citizen). The article title is ridiculous and I'm afraid that that this is one article that just inherently cannot be corrected. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As per my comment above and agreeing with all of the other valid reasons for deletion that have been put forward. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever (few) bits of the article are relevant to African Australian. The article's title itself is problematic as there are no reliable, non-trivial sources to support it.  The premise of the whole article is, in my opinion, rather offensive.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone else pointed out, unless you want this article to redirect to African Australian (leaving this problematic title a problem), you'd need to vote Delete rather than Merge. Correcting my own vote in accordance with that to make reaching consensus easier. Donama (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as numerous comments above, but if it is to be kept then rename to List of Australians of Black African descent. The intro section must go as it is false, and African Australian does not need a list appended to it.  Sussexonian (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete some people may consider "Black people in Australia" to include Aboriginals or even Pacific Islanders. as discussed above, it really is a loaded term that is not encyclopaedic and open to biased interpretation. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2010 (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.