Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African American neighborhoods (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Opinion is split on this one. I would note however, that despite considerable work by many editors, the list remains entirely unsourced. Some of the sources that were mentioned in the discussion probably should make it into the article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

List of African American neighborhoods
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Came up in May 2009 as no consensus, still a lot of issues.

Inherent POV issues and inclusion is completely subjective. No criteria for inclusion by number of residents, percentage, land area, etc. ...Notability, for that matter? What makes an area's ethnic makeup notable? No resources, citations, or necessarily resources in any of the articles listed for that matter. Well, I could go on. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator's Note: Although not in and of itself a reason to suggest deletion, it's worth noting that other racial minorities in the United States do not have lists or categories and as such this. On top of the POV issues of entry in the list, this additionally could be interpreted as an ethnic/racial POV push, and/or a US-centric view of minority groups in the general population. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason why the list exists in the first place is that it was a section of African-American neighborhood that grew too big. Other notable ethnic neighborhoods have their own lists—there are similar lists in Little Italy and Chinatown. See also List of Italian American neighborhoods and List of Hispanic Neighborhoods. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The list was intended to include "the oldest and most influential" African-American neighborhoods, but it has become a list of every African-American neighborhood anybody with a PC can think of. I gave up on the article months ago. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaaah, okay, that makes sense. That would be historically useful to have, but yeah, knowing some of listed places, it's more of a sad POV statement and a passive insinuation of infamy instead of notability when neither is likely necessary or. Hum. Namely I didn't find a list for Asian Americans which if why I said others were missing, but that's moot. Is there a project under which something new like that could be started? Just any sort of organization, though wow would the list have to be named incredibly well to avoid additions in bulk like this again. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete there is no clear criteria of what is in or out. and then it becomes POV exercise. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep POV problems can be solved. Don't just toss the entire article because it's poorly written. Turn it into a stub if need be. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have any ideas on how the POV of every single article on this list can be "solved" and a numerical standard applied to all of them, I'm all ears. It's not that it's poorly-written, it's poorly-implemented. A similar article might be "List of very steep hills". What's "steep" or "extremely steep" in comparison? How tall a hill? etc. It's completely subjective without a statistical component. There are countless other issues beyond just the POV on the top of the surface, too, but it'd have taken an hour to type of all of it in the listing. ...Stub also isn't a magical way to save any and all articles that aren't up to very basic article principles like neutrality and POV, either. Stubbing might work on a new article as a stop-gap, but shouldn't anywhere else. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no idea of what makes an african american neighbourhood, what percentage african americans. Or how it is established that that is what the people are. There are no links to information supporting the assertions. Clicking on several areas at random opens Wiki pages which do not suggest the ethnic makeup. There are also several unsupported factoids inserted into the text. Since there is no sourcing and no obvious reason to even have the list, I must vote delete. If ethnic compnent is important it would be better first discussed on the relative pages for each neighbourhood, but right now there is no evidence that this category is noteworthy and less evidence that the content could be made useable. Weakopedia (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This information is worth keeping if correct/accurate. Also the idea of a stub is good. My main issue is lack of source with possible OR or possible intent on negative POV. (Page was created 19 June 2008  by user 12.217.150.38). --   R. Mutt 1917    Talk  20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the US Census Bureau doesn't give statistics for neighborhoods, so we don't have any way to know if a neighborhood belongs here or not. We may have a neighborhood with precise official boundaries, like those in Pittsburgh, but how do we know the racial makeup of the neighborhood?  Or perhaps we can know vaguely that a certain area in a city is predominately African-American, but how do we know where one neighborhood starts and another ends?  Even if we have both, we really can't say reliably that one neighborhood is predominately African-American and that another is not, so this list fails WP:V.  Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fairly straightforward WP:NOT violation, actually; this is just an indiscriminate list, without any sources or attempt at definitions. For instance, Dorchester is only in fact a third black, so what are we talking about?  "List of neighborhoods with a lot of African-Americans in them?"    RGTraynor  03:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As I said in the last AFD:
 * The requirements are listed at the top of the article. The name should be changed to avoid confusion though. I have added in the reason for several of the entries to exist. If you see any entry that doesn't have any notable historical or cultural influence, then erase it. Dream Focus 11:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. Read the top of the article. Does that sound like an indiscriminate list? They get coverage in the news or history books, for historic events or something of cultural important.  D r e a m Focus  05:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, we saw that. The statement "This list contains neighborhoods that have been described as predominantly or historically African American" begs the questions, however, of "whom by?" and "what makes that noteworthy?"  And what makes any of these neighborhoods historically or culturally significant?  Just that blacks live/d there?  Do you have any policy grounds on which to advocate keeping the article?    RGTraynor  07:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that there is an article defining what is an African-American neighborhood, and having a list of all of them, and listing the reasons why it is on the list, is perfectly valid for an article.  D r e a m Focus  05:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete there are some historically important black neighborhoods like "Chinatowns" -- probably about 10 or so. But that's not how this indiscriminate list is defined, and it's unmaintanable. "Chinatowns" work because they're often officially recognized and are in fact called "chinatowns.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - inherently encyclopedic and verifiable, or merge with African-American neighborhood. POV can be avoided. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Has anyone, including the nominator (see WP:BEFORE), made any effort at all to look for sources? If reliable sources define an area as an "African-American neighborhood" or a synonym, then we can accept that for the purposes of this article. So it's perfectly possible to make such a list. There's a whole book about the African-American neighborhoods in St. Petersburg, Florida. There was a documentary made about Como, Fort Worth, Texas. Here's a source for Fountain Park, St. Louis. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nominator's comment 2 days in: As of 1800 UTC on 7 Dec the list is already well-improved and encompasses a more varied set of locations. There's some hope yet, I think. Though I still stand at delete at present with good faith toward some lean, I'm starting to think at least some of the article info can be moved/merged/generally messed with even if this not-yet-consensus-defined subjective list goes. It would be just plain cruel to see the hard work simply disappear. Questions/concerns could be okay posted here but should be on the article talk page as well some rewording of the definition is still going to be needed. More AfDs should be this productive :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to last, it's been said and confirmed the US Census doesn't have this info per neighborhood which would be the only objective info unless municipalities cover it. Some ... might. We'd still need to come up with a subjective "notability" line that had at least some definitive wording or there's still a case for "random" inclusion. It's okay if it's a low bar, so long as there's somewhere to start from. As said just above, I'm getting more confident a lot of the work can be saved in one form or another. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per previous keep vote. - encyclopedic and verifiable. Badagnani (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a list of historically significant African-American neighborhoods, paralleling other ethnic neighborhood lists as ref'd above. Other material can be trimmed out without deleting the article as a whole. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a subject of widespread study and commentary, so it is Verifiable. I don't see an NPOV problem either. Maybe a rename to List of historically African American neighborhoods or List of predominantly African American neighborhoods or List of notable African American neighborhoods. I would be fine with either, so long as the article is kept--Blargh29 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename as suggested just above, and source. This is material that does need specific sourcing that each is or was such a neighborhood--the general link to the Wikipedia article is an indication, but it should be supplemented by something specific, and I doubt there is  going to be any link finding it. If the list refers to neighborhoods that are not currently in this group, the approximate date span should be added.    DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this would improve with some date spans adding per DGG. Obviously rigorous checking of sourced inclusion criteria from the article's themselves is a necessary minimum. Polargeo (talk) 11:57, 14 December 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.