Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black sitcom


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping  10:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Black sitcom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm going with delete it on the grounds of WTF? AmericanGuru (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) (I don't know what I'm doing with the procedure to go about this...so bear with me...but it needed to be said.)
 * Fixed the discussion page. Keep but delete the example farm. The term does seem to be used widely in the media. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo the WTF; but have a question: is this an accepted industry term for a genre of deliberately-targeted programming?  pablo hablo. 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keep': Before asking WTF? it might have been worth checking the outside world - this is a socially significant genre which is a subject of extensive discussion and references are easy to find:, not to mention checking Wikipedia for Black sitcoms, an existing Wikipedia category. Opbeith (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the items in the Category:Black_sitcoms also included in the List of sitcoms. Sounds to me like a case of Overcategorization. Hmmm I can see several obvious ones that would be missing, Category:Mexican_sitcoms,Category:French-Canadian_sitcoms etc etc etc Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just demolished the article and started from scratch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename; the concept has been noted by established authors, and the topic merits discussion. If the article was retitled African-Americans on television (or something) more genres where blacks made inroads on TV could be covered, which would be a good thing (I am thinking specifically of The Hazel Scott Show on DuMont and The Nat King Cole Show on NBC, which doesn't even have its own article, sadly). Firsfron of Ronchester  03:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all black actors are Americans.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Including Hazel Scott, which I linked to above. Firsfron of Ronchester  13:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps those could be separate articles. The term "black sitcom" seems widely used enough that it could cover just the sitcoms, and still serve as a companion to an article on the role of blacks on TV in general. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, separate articles. Opbeith (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is up for writing an article on blacks on U.S. TV in general? Firsfron of Ronchester  13:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Its a well known genre, is the "WTF?" because it recognizes race?--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Difficult to understand otherwise. There are real worlds out there. Opbeith (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF no. 2 (mine) was because this is a term I have never heard used, nor had I read it before happening upon this article. However I recognise that I only inhabit a small part of the English-speaking world, and am not fluent in TV jargon, hence my question.  pablo hablo. 10:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * pablo, that's understandable, but this is why it's important for Wikipedia editors to have an awareness and understanding of the real world in which other people are living and using the articles. This isn't a hermetic, abstract universe. Opbeith (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty understanding what exactly it was in my posts to this page that would lead you to believe that I had no "awareness and understanding of the real world".  pablo hablo. 16:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not being aware that there may be grounds for concern when someone says "I'm going with delete it on the grounds of WTF?" in relation to an article with the title "Black sitcom" is a starting point - and then remarking "I echo the WTF". Assuming this was said innocently it still suggests you're not too familiar with some significant social issues in the US.  I don't live in the US yet I'm aware that the black sitcom is a subject associated with social and political controversy. Opbeith (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. You are, of course, free to assume whatever you like. What I am "not too familiar with" is the US television industry, which is why I asked the question that I did, which then apparently led you to assume any number of things. Now if you could restrict yourself to the article in question rather than speculating about my state of social consciousness, I'd appreciate it.  pablo hablo. 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, as long as you're happy to refrain from using the expression abbreviated to WTF in a context where that expression conveys insensitive disrespect. Opbeith (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Insensitive disrespect"? Is that what it conveys to you? If you want to continue this bizarre analysis I suggest you do it at my talk page rather than here. It is becoming a distraction to other editors who may read it and themselves think (however respectfully or sensitively), "WTF?"  pablo hablo. 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of this recent brouhaha:.--Milowent (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some more sources and expanded slightly, there was more coverage than I even realized when I !voted keep before.--Milowent (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge & redir to Sitcom. It is a sub-genre of that topic. It is (currently) not excessively long to merge with the parent and would explain better the parent topic when shown allong side any other sub-genres that gets a stub (Thats what this article currently is, really). It would also start to provide the Parent Article with References (of which it has none). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeating Keep: I have expanded with specific reference to the significant features of the black sitcom as a genre/scoial phenomenon. I am not American and I am not black, so my expansion could do with being checked and probably reformulated by someone who is both of those and so has a closer understanding of the genre. Opbeith (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep And I mean keep the original version before someone decided to hit it with a ten pound hammer.  Everything on the list links to a Wikipedia article.  No sense having a separate article for the list, when it fits fine in this article.   D r e a m Focus  13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added back in the List of all notable Black sitcoms. There can be discussion on the talk page if anyone believes that should be split into its own article.  I think it looks fine just there.   D r e a m Focus  13:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Forgot to mention the reason it should be kept.  Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD.  See how many news sources call it a Black sitcom?  Google book search and Google scholar search have results also.   D r e a m Focus  13:24, 18 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.