Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black supremacy


 * 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 No consensus to delete This debate had valid opinions on both sides. There does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article. That being said it is generally agreed that the article needs significant improvement. If these improvements are not made in a reasonable time then another AfD may be justified in the future. HighInBC 16:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Black supremacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As has been pointed out by myself and others above (and apparently pointed out over the years too) this article is a disaster and totally out of whack with Wikipedia policy...A. The lead section is an original research/opinion essay that cites absolutely nothing whatsoever. B. The lead section and the body of the article have absolutely nothing to do with each other..the lead in no way summarizes what is in the body of the article (this was pointed out above by another editor in the preceding TALK section). C. the topic "Black Supremacy" doesn't appear to exist in the real world...there don't appear to be any notable sources that cite/refer to "Black Supremacy" as a notable phenomenon/movement. It appears someone decided on their own to gather together a bunch of groups and decided on their own to label these groups "Black Supremacy" (ie basically invent the term) in order to create a Wikipedia article. I'm likely going to initiate a AfD for this...any thoughts first?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC) created from talk outage comment after request at afd talk. -- GB fan 13:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. st170e talk  14:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: the above statement is mine, moved over from the talk page with the assistance of GBfan..His moving it over should not be considered an endorsement of what is contained within the statement.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but pare back to what can be reliably sourced. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * really not sure this would ever actually be done nor if it's even possible (ie not sure what if anything could remain)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep but a major revamp is definitely needed. Jdcomix (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to DRAFT?: this is another possibility, I do believe..the keeps above have even acknowledged how poor the article is...still don't know if the topic even really exists in any notable sense though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutral I endorse everything said by Malik Shabazz and the drastic need for a major revamp mentioned by Jdcomix, but the subject is article-worthy, even if the current article isn't WP-worthy. Pincrete (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you'd add a bit more in regards to your research as to whether the term "Black Supremacy" is even a thing in the real world of any notability that can be sourced...ie that there is a notable phenomenon in the real world being referred to as "Black Supremacy"..what do you suggest as far as the article not being currently "WP-worthy"?? Should it be put into DRAFT space? what might a proper article even look like based on the research you've done (as you've described in the RfC going on there now??)68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * that is, you agreed that the article teeters on being a hoax article, and that you can't find sources to suggest the topic even exists...but then you vote to keep it without even mentioning the research you've done? what gives??68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a 'hoax' article in the WP sense of wholly 'non-existent', simply very bad at present. My research was cursory, but sufficient to persuade me that the implied connections to named organisations in the article, are mostly SYNTH, OR, dubious or not properly given context. That cursory research also persuaded me that the term has been used by RS of certain individuals, theories and 'wings' of some organisations. Even the Yeti has an article, part of its job is to establish to what extent the Yeti IS real. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - as anyone who clicks the source links above will quickly see, there is plenty of evidence of notability, which is the only rationale that would justify outright deletion in the nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you'll have to look more closely..there's just some superficial uses of the phrase "black supremacy"...there's nothing to suggest there's an existing coherent movement or phenomenon known as "black supremacy" as this article tries to suggest...in contrast with "black power"/"black separatism" etc etc.68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't claim there's a unified black supremacy movement. Unaffiliated sources such as SPLC have used the term to describe the beliefs of groups such as the New Black Panther Party. clpo13(talk) 18:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * the article's very existence suggests it's a coherent, existing phenomenon that's out there in the real world...it's true that splc used the phrase 'black supremacy' in referring to some of the beliefs of some of the people associated with this one particular group...I suppose that could be used in the article about that group then...but this article as it stands now is entirely original research and synth...at least move it to DRAFT or something??68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really, does it, any more than the existence of the Yeti article suggests that yetis are out there in the real world? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: the article is WP:OR and SYNTH and should be deleted in its current form. There may be room for an article on Black supremacy term (as the White pride article does), but no on the "ideology". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There would actually be no need for a 'rename', merely a re-focus to describe how the term has been used, about whom/what, by whom, when etc. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My comment was "...in its current form". A new article with the same name can always be created. As the article stands now, it's nothing but OR and SYNTH, and is not adding any value to Wikipedia. I therefore support the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your assessment of the present article .... It's a disgrace to WP. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT, with the understanding that if anyone wants to re-create a neutral and properly sourced version of this page, they are welcome to do so. Article as it stands has had chronic sourcing and POV issues, which have been known about for several years with no one stepping up to actually clean up the article and ensure that it is verifiable and NPOV - I think in large part because there are very few sources that discuss the topic in any significant depth. I'm happy to change my vote to keep if/when the article actually gets cleaned up and somebody finds enough RS to hang a well-referenced article on, but I'm not holding my breath - and until that happens, we're better off with no page (or maybe a redirect to Black nationalism?) than the current page, which is not reliably sourced and not NPOV. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Everything I would say has been said by and . PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jdcomix. --Laber□T 09:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Although there are quite a number of sources using the term in passing, and describing people and ideas as 'Black supremacist'. I could not see any defining the term or describing or studying the 'ideology' or phenomenon in any depth (as Fyddlestix says above). Pincrete (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Pettersburg, Orbach, Hamilton, Ture have all made claims about black supremacy in the past. It would be interesting to add their viewpoints as well. The rest of the article is pretty good too. BrxBrx (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * pretty good? nothing in the article is inline with policy for a Wikipedia article..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It would appear that the original editor who proposed this for deletion has been blocked for canvassing for votes for the deletion of this page. I for one, am now less inclined to believe his/her claims about this page, and the rationale for its deletion. BrxBrx (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm somehwat confused, - doesn't seem to have been blocked. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , no, I meant . just copied his/her comments from the talk page to this afd discussion page. BrxBrx (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You now view 's delete rationale in a worse light because they were sanctioned: what do you think of all the other delete votes and their rationale? Similarly tarred? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 68.48.241.158's block expired and is now unblocked and has been so for almost 4 hours. I agree with 's sentiment, being sanctioned for canvassing should have no bearing on the validity of their argument.  -- GB fan 11:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I was blocked for "canvassing" for alerting Pincrete to this so Pincrete could discuss the research he had done into the sources on this topic and which he had already explained in the RfC (to be helpful to others with the goal of improving the encyclopedia...note even the "keeps" mostly agree the article is a disaster...so would think this would really be a "vote" to perhaps move it into DRAFT space or something?)..the idea is to get something done to improve the encyclopedia..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I don't consider myself 'canvassed' in the least. I had advised IP 158 about AfD procedure on the article talk page on the same day as he opened this AfD and contacted me on my talk. The link to this AfD was posted publicly on article talk by 158 and as I was watching both article and talk, I would have found out immediately anyway. A bit naive about practice perhaps, but nothing sinister about IP 158's actions. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia to cover.  I don't see any problems (as described above) that can't be handled better through editing than by just deleting the article.  Deli nk (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * how about moving it to draft until if/when it's improved to be displayed to the public...most everyone agrees it sheds a bad light on Wikipedia as it stands...and no one has come forth to improve it in years (as it may be difficult/impossible to do so)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article may need to be cleaned up some, however the subject is notable, there are a number of sources to show this, and the topic as stated above is appropriate to cover. To add, the article should NOT be moved to a draft, as this page can indeed be worked on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it shouldn't be moved to draft because it can be worked on?? the point is that is where it should be worked on as it's not ready for public display currently..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be cleaned up while still in the mainspace. There's enough in the article to keep it there, while improving it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * nothing in the article is in line with Wikipedia article policy, it would seem....you'd have to look into that carefully yourself or defer to the people above who have looked into it..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 158, friendly advice, responding to everyone's comments, without adding anything new, isn't encouraged on AfD, it just 'clutters' the discussion. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * understand, I've mostly tried to get clarification from KEEP votes, to see if putting this back into a draft would be agreeable to them...because most of them state keep but then agree the article is terrible vis a vis article policy...but most of them don't follow up..so hopefully the closer will discount their votes or realize they're supportive of putting into draft or something...but I won't reply to posts again...but only wait to the end to again suggest how this all should be interpreted by the closer..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to tell the closer how to interpret the discussion. Whomever decides to close it needs to read the discussion and decide if there is a consensus to do anything.  -- GB fan 19:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * not to like tell them what to do but suggest a possible interpretation for them to consider is all I meant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The person who closes this will know how to close AFDs and doesn't need more advice from any of the editors who participated in the discussion. You have said your piece and responded to others.  If someone add something and you can bring up something new then respond otherwise leave it alone.  -- GB fan 19:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of sources that can be used to indicate notability. DimensionQualm (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Such as?? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick search shows these.] More can also be found upon a deeper search, plus the ones already present in the article. DimensionQualm (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Briebart isn't a RS, and the SPLC source mentions black supremacy only once, in passing. Neither demonstrates notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT - While it's possible or perhaps even likely that a new article could be written on this topic, the current content should either be deleted, immediately stubbed or moved back into draft. It's not suitable as-is and a terrible, poorly-sourced and unrepresentative article is not better than no article at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Black separatism. The current article is total garbage and isn't likely to ever be able to improve. The only potentially reliable sources that exist regarding this topic refer to a fringe subculture within Black separatism/nationalism, but of which little is known precisely because there are so few of them. Laval (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete & redirect to Black separatism; Laval has a point. Anything which might be seen as worth saving, which is not redundant, can be moved to the "Black separatism" article or made a sub-section therein. Kierzek (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the only reason to delete this article is WP:TNT. Wikipedia isn't here to protect peoples feelings, and this... "phenomenon" is notable enough to warrant an article. Seeing as the subject seems to be becoming more and more prominent, it would be better to create an acceptable article now rather than deal with the inevitable trash heep that would get made in its place.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make sense: A. TNT is all that is required for justification, though there is plenty more B. whose feelings are being protected? and who has suggested anybody cares about anybody's feelings? C. no one has yet demonstrated notability D. any potential future article couldn't possibly be worse than the current one..(please forgive, won't respond again to this particular user but can't standby and let posts like this just go unchallenged)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any opinion about the substantive issue of whether we should keep or delete this article, but must note that the statement that WP:TNT is all that is required for justification is completely wrong. WP:TNT is an essay that runs counter to our policies and guidelines, by which an article can be rewritten at any time by anybody without requiring the prior deletion of the article history. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * all of the other reasons too then..sure, stub it, put it into draft, whatever...just get this article in its current state from being seen by the public (and your opinion that the essay runs counter to guidelines is just that, an opinion)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And, of course, your statement that the TNT essay is all that is required for justification is not just an opinion but undisputed fact. If you think that my opinion is wrong then cite a policy or guideline that says that an article can't be rewritten without prior deletion of the article history. That would prove me wrong. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * what are you even talking about? read my last response again..I'm done responding to you..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2016 (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.