Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president


 * 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: Looking at this debate, it's clear the decision of whether or not to include this topic is a controversial one.

Looking at the current state of the article, it quite clearly violates our policy regarding synthesis of published material. The references have been chosen based on their use of the phrase "black president," there is an entire section about rumors of black ancestry (all of which would be better off in the individuals' articles), a section on the phrase itself (which belongs on Wiktionary), and a "in popular culture" section.

There is little redeeming about the current state of the article. That, combined with the debate leaning somewhat toward a 'delete' decision moves me to close as delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Black president (United States)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pointless POV fork, original research. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Agree. Totally unreferenced essay, not an article. It seems to have been created solely to get the author a link in Obama's WP:LEDE. Dayewalker (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * author does not get a link, article does. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

*Lower case delete I don't this article is quite the abomination that the two above me seem to, but in its current state it's not much of a contribution to Wikipedia. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 21:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC) It's much better now. I'm still not positive it's an article we need, so I'm neutral. I would suggest that most of these !votes need to be discounted, since the article is drastically different now. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETE - This article does nothing but express one person's point of view. The creator's excuse for creating the page is: "oh yeah- wanted to emphasize- the news media SEEM TO BE UNABLE TO SHUT UP about the historical significance of obama's being the first black person elected president. this should be in the article. especially today on the news. it's all they can talk about. Sure- people are genuinely excited about that, so it's a valid news topic, but wow. so, I'll put it in soon, if on one else does. k, later." This page should not be included in Wikipedia. manadude2 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No references, no notability, highly POV, and edited by one who is acting just as his username suggests. PhGustaf (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It's a whole new article now, and I'm leaning towards Keep . PhGustaf (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's still flawed, certainly, but it has enough potential to not be thrown away. PhGustaf (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * it's "whole" in my name. in case you- k, later. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete POV essay. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 21:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been improved drastically from what I originally voted delete on. I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook


 * Delete I declined the CSD since it was not a G6 and would have been a mess that I didn't want on my talk. There may be an article to be written about black presidents, but this isn't it. I highly recommend nothing be created until after the hullabaloo around the inauguration settles down and there's the potential for something even moderately neutral. StarM  22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of African-American firsts - WP is a global project, article is presumably only about the United States though (which as of Tuesday, will only have had 1 (half-)black president. You could add into this article all of the other black presidents around Africa, the Caribbean, etc., but what would be the point of having an article about various presidents from Africa/Americas/etc. of a certain ethnicity. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * a first black president would be/has been a big-deal moment in other countries besides the US. I didn't have time to put in the whole international angle that relates to the idea of black president. I figured someone could add it if it wasn't deleted right away. when I create an article, I imagine it living for a while and people improving it if it's got flaws- flaws that aren't fundamental. thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That article is just a line-by-line-by-year list that will no doubt be updated at noon EST Tuesday. There's nothing in this article to merge. PhGustaf (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. I think there's potentially something here. The notion of "Will there be a black President in my lifetime?" was something certainly existent in popular thinking before Obama's rise to prominence, just as "Will there be a female/atheist/gay/insertminorityhere President in my lifetime?" still is. Not sure, though, and not too willing to stick my neck out for it :P Don't fall asleep  zzzzzz 23:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is not relevant to this discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. It's what the article's first sentence refers to. But like I said, I'm not sure in any case that that's fodder for a suitable article. Don't fall asleep  zzzzzz 23:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about one particularly bad article. It's not relevant that a good article could be written on the same topic. PhGustaf (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How....in the world is it not? If the content of President of the United States was nothing but a mishmash of meaningless letters, like kjlfdwgfewqotf8wu4eg[0ojgeq[0wehryh0jgwh0e00qg9j0j9 or something, it would be incorrect to write a suitable article about that (say, the one we currently have), and the only correct course of action would be to delete it? Don't fall asleep  zzzzzz 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that most of the article should hit the shredder, but am hesitant to endorse deletion of a good-faith submission when maybe 2-3 lines could be saved in a merge. (possibly into a lede about the significance of "firsts" of a particular group, like in List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender firsts, addressing the cultural implications) The apparent intent of the article creator was the cultural significance of a first black president of the US, which the Obama articles will already cover in a better context than this could. The only other alternative I can think of would be to convert it into a List of African American first officeholders of the United States (mayors, congress members (during Reconstruction and since), governors, etc. (a similar article also exists for lesbian/gay persons - this way the article wouldn't only be about Barack Obama), but the List of African American firsts already serves that purpose. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: (EC) NoSleep, that's not really a valid analogy, as one is an inherently notable position and the other is just a vague description. In any case, this AfD is about the article that is written. Since it seems to have been written just to link to the Obama article, the question for me was if the article is good enough to provide a link in one of our highest-traffic articles. That's why I voted to delete above. If someone wanted to create an actual article on this subject with proper sources later, that article can be judged on its own merit. As for good faith, it seems as if this editor has created several articles that were speedily deleted. Dayewalker (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What we've got here is a failure to communicate. When I said "suitable article," I didn't simply mean a well-written article, I meant one suitable, in all respects, for inclusion in Wikipedia. It seems that wasn't clear to Gustaf. Don't fall asleep  zzzzzz 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This topic has been covered to death in numerous other articles. I don't see anything here to suggest why a standalone is necessary. 23skidoo (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is so true. There should not be a stand alone article for something that has already been covered.manadude2 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, where has it been covered in other articles? cuz, that's basically what I'm looking for if it can't stay alive as it's own article. I think it's a legit topic. maybe a stand-alone article won't do for now- so where deos wikipedia cover this ground? thanks. in good faith, Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep since its current state makes this a worthwhile article, in need of some more work perhaps. Delete. As far as I'm concerned, the title is nonsensical (since it applies only to the US) and the content is verbose and lacking substance--it's really a rant. I don't see how any decent encyclopedic article could be written with this title or by someone in the state of mind that the current writer must have been in (total spleen--and look at the very first edit summary in the history). Drmies (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I only wrote the US angle. sure, the international aspect of the idea of black president should be included. it's a wiki! it's not a final draft! no one wants to step up to fix it? would it really matter if I put the stub tag back? Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. I de-speedied this article because it didn't meet any of the CSD criteria. The article in its current state is, as the above voters put it, a POV, US-centric essay that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral per the rewrite. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of content. Whatever vision the author had for this article, he got bogged down in vague generalities, and so all we have is "Obama became the first black president. People talked about it." WillOakland (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Freechild's rewrite makes the prior discussion irrelevant. WillOakland (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no potential for this article to be encyclopedic. Timneu22 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um- I'm thinkin' Keep. yeah. any criticism that does not use the knee jerk terms "pointless" or "worthless" would be preferred. if enough people want to delete, then you'll always be able to. it will never be difficult to delete if that's what you;r determined to do. just don't pretend like you've articulated some solid reason with the most standard deletion adjectives that are on every perfunctory deletion discussion. oh yeah- I think "POV" is getting a bit overused, too. I understand POV concerns. I understand this wiki. has anyone looked at my contribs? what would a less POV version of what I'm talking about look like? does anyone dare draft it? if you could refute what irks you in my tone or content- set the record striaght- in a wikipedia article or anywhere- what would you say? any of you?
 * last thing regarding deletion criteria- the link from the obama article's LEDE is already removed. so let's not freak about that. it's not a deal breaker for me. I'm sure people will keep that page under control no matter what. I want backlinks to this page, of course, but the community decides what they will be.


 * you guys really hate when edit sums lack decorum. hehe. mental note.


 * to the rest of you that put some meat into the expression of your concerns, thanks. keep it gangster. I appreciate feedback into my discourse style from many of you. soldier on. keep the wiki strong. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'll catch you all later when this shit doesn't even seem historic any more. and wolf blitzer and jon king and chuck todd are like "wow, member how historic that shit was? And member how we didn't let that historicity slip by without mentioning it a few times?"

P.P.S. historicity is a word. and it has an article. k, later. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Strong keep The term "black president" has long had a notable presence. The term has been used in movies, music and politics. It has a meaning beyond a dictionary definition and has cultural significance. I didn't look to see what was here in the past as far as this article is concerned, but it just needs some work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is mostly vague generalities (including sentences such as "The implications of his potential election for race relations, American society and federal politics were discussed and emphasized endlessly in political circles, on cable news (pundits and professionals), in print journalism, academia and on the blogosphere"). It would be better to have an article like List of African-American candidates for President of the United States, which I don't think we currently have, to show how Obama became the first black candidate to win the presidency after others such as Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, and Alan Keyes had made attempts before him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone wishing to help with such a list can help work on User:Metropolitan90/List of African-American United States presidential and vice presidential candidates where it is underway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No opinion due to the complete rewrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, my article has been moved to List of African-American United States presidential and vice presidential candidates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mostly OR and generalizations - not to mention that the article is U.S.-centric (after all, other nations have had black presidents and heads of state).  Graymornings (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see what all the fuss is about - Zimbabwe have had one for years...  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary, poorly written, unreferenced,  full of generalizations, etc etc etc.  Feels like snowtime to me, but whatever. Tvoz / talk 08:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My "snow" comment was in response to the article in its original form, so I've struck that - but I continue to think that that this article is not encyclopedic, and in fact has some serious problems such as its mention of Eisenhower as the son of an "Ethiopian father and mulatto mother". Many of the new references are also not easily verifiable, which may not on its own be reason to delete, but which raises questions.  My delete stands. Tvoz / talk 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Please note that I have completely rewritten the article and added citations. It should be MOVED to "First African American President of the United States". • Freechild   'sup?   09:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is now amply sourced. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this US-centric POV essay with ample, but useless, footnotes. Per Lugnuts - Zimbabwe has had one for years, and I don't see him in the article. Also, where is White president, Asian president, Native American president, and so on up to and including Samoan president? This is an essay, and it promotes a racist view, whether intentionally or not. Killer(I've always been a friend to the NEE-gro)Chiuahua16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)~
 * Regarding the suggestion we merge or rename: We already have an article on the First black president of the US: it is found at Barack Obama Killer(FirstMexicanDogOnWikipedia)Chihuahua 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to admins/nominator: is it possible to withdraw this nomination and nominate the new and irredeemably improved version? The previous discussion was really about a very different article, and while I have some reservations about the present version as an encyclopedic article, it deserves a fair shot--all this yelling (above--and I did my part...) taints the discussion. If this doesn't come to pass, I'll change my vote, and express my thanks to Freechild for their hard work. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not withdrawing the nomination because I still think it's an unnecessary WP:CFORK. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I respectfully disagree; I think (now) it can stand on its own, in light of the revision and, for instance, Childofmidnight's comments below, and will change my vote accordingly. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as US-centric fork essay. Not to mention already covered in full in other articles. Hobartimus (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As revised, renamed, and sourced, this page treats an interesting and long-lived concept in American culture and literature.  This is about the idea of the "first black president", not a biography of Obama. The evolution of the idea has, over decades, had a distinct influence on American attitudes.  This weekend there is an interesting essay on the topic (as reflected in film history) by two respected film critics in The New York Times:"The presidencies of James Earl Jones in “The Man,” Morgan Freeman in “Deep Impact,” Chris Rock in “Head of State” and Dennis Haysbert in “24” helped us imagine Mr. Obama’s transformative breakthrough before it occurred. In a modest way, they also hastened its arrival."
 * Manohla Dargis and A. O. Scott, "How the Movies Made a President", New York Times, January 16, 2009. I don't find the complaints of "US-centric" to be convincing at all, now that the essay has been renamed. Some of the commenters are calling this a "fork" (by the way, I assume they are referring to WP:CFORK not WP:FORK) but it is not clear to me, at least, what it belongs at--certainly not a list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe if the focus were changed to the idea of and representations of the first black US president it could fly, but as it is now - an amalgamation of fictional references (which I think is the best part) and extremely dubious "scholarship" (which can't remain) - I can't support it.  Another rewrite might convince me otherwise, along these lines, but not as it is now. Tvoz / talk 19:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless this is significantly improved. I agree with many of the "keep" !voters above that this basic topic is worthy of an encyclopedia article. However, I also agree with all the "delete" !voters who note that the current article, even improved as much as it has been, is not what we want to have on Wikipedia. In particular, the overreliance on one scholar with an obvious bias makes the current version run far afoul of NPOV. I don't oppose having an article on the subject - just not this one. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete :::Do we have a "First Catholic President" article? "First Scotch-Irish President" article?  "First Quaker President" article?  "First Dutch-American President" article?  And so forth.  21:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Catholics, Scotch-Irish, Quakers, Dutch weren't brought to North America in chains on slave ships, served generations as slaves, then generations under Jim Crow. The reason a first African American president is so significant is this specific context that African Americans have had in US history, since colonial times. If the tables were turned, and whites were brought to America to serve under black masters, and were finally having a president that looked like them(us, in my case), it would be as big of a deal to whites as it is to blacks now. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, it's a big deal to me too, and I'm lily-white--almost pasty. As for PhGustaf's comment below, those two headings, while big in their times, don't generate that much social or cultural buzz as our current subject does. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if we were doing this in 1960 or 1980, we ight well be talking about "First Catholic President" or "First Divorced President". They were big issues in their times. PhGustaf (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, Drmies, its not about "buzz," its about notability. Both of this topics PhGustaf mentioned could have their own articles by way of their social and cultural significance, and on their notability. • Freechild   'sup?   23:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Buzz leads to notability. Maybe you misunderstood me--I'm saying that IMO Obama, the black president now, is a bigger deal than Kennedy, the Catholic president, then. Still, in a way the article isn't about Obama, but about an American cultural hang-up, a very notable one. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind Drmies, he's European. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, renaming to Black President of the United States or something. I'm surprised we don't seem to have even a list of fictional ones, and the anticipation of one is a notable topic. No need to restrict it to "the first". Obviously this still needs improving, but now it's worth keeping. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, until such time as we have an article on Golf ball (neon orange). Un sch  ool  03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename it's definitely a decent-looking article now, and the idea of having a black president of the USA is surely significant. However, the way it's named makes it sound as if "black president" is a type of president, just as "village (Vermont)" is a type of village.  Perhaps African-American presidents of the United States (with or without the hyphen; I can't remember when we're supposed to use it) would be best?  Good points to those who note about other countries; Sir Seretse Khama was the first black president of Botswana, and he and his presidency were highly significant, but not because he was the first black man to be the president.  Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree on the renaming idea. Once this vastly improved and expanded article is kept, we can engage that discussion in full, but the concept of "black president" has always been relatively clear and distinct. The internationalists objected to this shorter title, so it's been narrowed to the (United States). I would like to see it return to "black president" and I welcome the inclusion of black presidents from other countries. The concept is international and clearly the U.S. is a leading nation for presidents and for the concept of a "black president". I think there will be a separate article on the first black president or on first black presidents, but as I see it this article is really about this unique and special category and its cultural and historic significance. I think adding a long worded title isn't appropriate. When people talk about the subject they don't talk about "of the United States" they talk about a "black president". That's what they sing about in rap songs and parody in comedy routines. It's potent and short. The more broad historical topic is a separate article I think and as this expands I wouldn't be surprised to see them split in two. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten It is a whole new article now. Deletion must be based on notability and verifiability. The term is certainly notable based on a simple Google search. All other issues involve editing the article and trimming the essay-like prose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a referenced essay, not an encyclopedic topic any more than is the portrayals of any position by people of a particular race/ethnicity/sex/sexual orientation. Asian medical examiners (United States) could include the guy from Quincy; German POW camp guards could have lots of pointers from Hogan's Heroes; etc. Purely a COATRACK that we like, but still a COATRACK. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Coatracks have hidden agendas and hidden bias, what is the secret agenda of this article? I am sure an article about "Woman president" could also be written. There already is Women in medicine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not an essay.  It's far less coherent than an essay.  The version I am looking at now should be deleted because it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  What do we have here?  We have references to the first black American president, references to comedic parodies and fictional presidents, references to spurious claims that other presidents before Obama were perhaps partly black, music performances about black presidents, discussions of other men (i.e. WJC) who were "designated" as the black president, and the completely OR statement that is supposed to tie all this together, "Given the nation's history of slavery, segregation, racism and discrimination, the idea has had a potent resonance."   Please, people, I'm as excited as anyone about the history that's going to be made in nine hours, but this is just an unbelievable collection of disparate information that all fits, appropriately, in other articles.  The only thing that maybe should tie these together is (perhaps) a new category.  But not this psuedo-article.   Un  sch  ool  08:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The concept of "black president" is not indiscriminate at all, the article shows the evolution of the concept in fiction and in political history. I have deleted the unreferenced essay portion, and added or formatted the references. The concept was in place long before Obama. It is now an historical overview, but may still need some cleaning up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I have no doubt that a short, focused article could be written on the subject of African American presidents of the United States in fiction but this is an unfocused essay plus a random collection of trivia ("In the post apocalyptic world of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, Tina Turner is a head of state.") much of it irrelevant, unreferenced, or both. - Dravecky (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep An article that properly addresses the subject using ample reliable and verifiable sources. It's amazing what a small handful of editors with the goal of improving this encyclopedia can do to create properly sourced and through articles, in the face of the still-festering forces of knee-jerk deletionism. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move, per FREECHILD, who deserves our thanks for turning a no-brainer delete article into an article within our policies and worth keeping. David in DC (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The anticipation the first black president and argument about who qualifies and what it represents is a distinct, notable topic. It can be focused and written better, but it is not an opinionated essay. I would also support a move to "First African American President of the United States" or something similar. Revelian (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Move and Expand Sociological Impact. I'm going to insert here my comment from Talk:Barack Obama: Simesa (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was married to a Black woman for over a decade, and had a daughter with her. But it was always there - there was always a part of her that was reserved, as if I or my friends might suddenly withdraw our acceptance of her at any second.  There was a shield that when around me was always up, that only came down when we were safely in her family's homes.  And, to be honest, whenever we were out in public there were always the subtle slights, the implications by both men and women that she was not good enough to be a first-class citizen.  This inauguration radically changes all of that - permanently.  For her and my daughter this is as of noon today a very different world.  Simesa (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * RE: Renaming. Per the different opinions about renaming the article, here's my thought: This article is not about the general issue of a "black president"; it is about the specific phenomenon of the first black president. Regarding the usage of the term "black", that word is used to describe people everywhere; in the U.S. there is a specific requirement that the president be an American; therefore, it is only logical that we use the phrase African American. That would mean that adding "of the United States" may be redundant, but is differentiates the topic of the article from any of the multitude African American presidents of different organizations around the country. Therefore, the article should be moved to "First African American president of the United States". (Should "president" be capitalized because its a title?) • Freechild   'sup?   13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree that the "first" is the subject - how many of the fictional depictions specified that they were dealing with the "first"? The job is "President of the United States" - why not just this unambiguous name (and yes it should be capitalized)? Personally I prefer "black", since that seems to me the term most often used in most contexts, but "African American" is fine.  So Black President of the United States, or African American President of the United States. But this should be a different discussion on the talk page I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree - it's the First, the Watershed Moment, that's the real justification for this article. History just changed, and Obama's being the first such African-American President is the reason it changed. Simesa (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP, RETITLE AND CLEAN UP. Consider retitling this article "History Leading to the First African American President"  or something more descriptive.  I found the article very interesting, I learned about Shirley Chisholm and John Hanson.  I found the references to comedians (humor often being a way to introduce tough issues) a great way to show how the subject has evolved over time.  In its improved state, it is well referenced.  Suggestions for further improvement:  clean-up the article (tag it with clean-up, cite, and expand), decide if "Black" vs African American should be used consistently in the article, edit it to read with a neutral POV. Add a section on the importance of diversity in our leadership. Because some of the history here refers to a time before we used the term "African American" perhaps "Black" should remain be used in historical context and referenced quotations.  Overall though an incredible relevant history on how perspectives have changed and evolved. This article will be so useful to students and scholars in future years when we forget how hard it was.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMcCJ (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but a renaming might be better. On one hand it can refer to Obama--a Black himself, on the other hand it could be of cultural perceptions--such as Bill Clinton. Define terminology. Mr Tan (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETE this lame essay is not needed. there is List of African-American firsts for these kind of subjects. --Maestro25 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE. C'mon, it's embarrassing. I cringed while I read it. Mention should certainly be made re Obama being the first "black" (actually mixed-race) US president (and its historic nature, implications, and so on) but that should be done in the relevant articles. This is a pointless fork appropriate for a highschool essay but not an encyclopaedia. Secret Squïrrel  01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Abundant evidence that this article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE is found in the comments of the persons who have voted to keep the article.  All one has to do is read the comments—notice that they don't even agree on what the subject of the article is.  This article is trying to be all things to all people, and a substantial number of people are falling for this silliness.  Someone above made the comment that an article about Black presidents in fiction might make an acceptable article, and I'd favor that.  Additionally, I'd support the creation of the following separate articles:
 * Alleged black ancestry of American presidents before Obama
 * History of black presidency in the arts and music
 * Black presidential candidates (in fact, if that article doesn't exist, I'm shocked.)

But this "article" is not an article at all, nor is it even an essay. It is just a collection of trivia that is only tangentially connected. As WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" I point this out because several of the writers above are changing to "keep" votes because now the article is so well-sourced. Well, that's not all there is to it. This article lacks any definable subject. I could write an article on Water in literature and science, and include examples of people discussing water in poems and songs and how water was a big part of certain novels and then throw in the unique way that water expands when it freezes and how that makes life on earth possible and then how water is made up of two elements and on and on. And I'd be able to provide citations for it all. And who would deny that water is sufficiently notable for all that to be included in an article? Yet look at water. Sure, it touches upon the intangible a bit. But the subject of the article is quite clearly the physical substance known as water, with only 5% or 6% of the article dealing with anything else. But here--what is the main theme of the article? Please don't say "Black President" until you can make that the subject of a sentence that encapsulates the essence of this article. And no one has been able to do this yet, because it's not possible, until the article settles on whether it's about the fictional history of the concept, or the candidates that have actually run, or about the use of the concept as inspiration for music or other art forms. This article, if it is allowed to stand, without additional definition, will become a monstrosity, even if it is fully cited, because citations do not address the problem. Look at this article. It is highly sourced, with over 80 citations. And unlike Black president, it has a defined theme. Yet it is still a poor excuse for an article, because any one can put in anything they want with a citation. The article currently under consideration will fare far worse, months down the road, if it is not narrowed down. As it currently stands, this article has a very bleak and embarrassing future. I still favor deletion, but splitting it into multiple articles would be a more acceptable solution than keeping it. Un sch  ool  01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since much of the information for the articles you suggest is contained in this article with sources, it makes perfect sense to keep it and then consider your recommendations for splitting it up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (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.