Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (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 of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 22:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

List of African Americans
The list of Jews has also been listed, so, I'm all for equality. Arniep 00:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, WP:POINT. Andrew Levine 00:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Delete per 23skidoo, this is overbroad and better served with the category/subcategory scheme. Andrew Levine 19:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. How do you maintain this type of list?  Jtmichcock 03:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific?--Jondel 09:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT.
 * Delete. Although Arniep is getting silly with all his/her AFDs (WP:POINT), as I indicated in a talk page message on this I do support the deletion of this one on the basis that it is simply too broad a topic for a list and is more efficiently handled as a category; this list could have potentially millions of names. (Additional comment: no racism intended or implied on my part and I'm not going to lose any sleep over this being kept). 23skidoo 06:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are millions of African-Americans, or of any other specific cultural group, deserving of Wikipedia articles. I've suggested before that this be renamed List of notable African-Americans, trimmed to include only the most notable and famous figures (I'd arbitrarially cut the list off at about 200), and make pages for specializations of careers and lifestyles, sdiscouraging the addition of names to this one. After re-reviewing the list, it's already rather brief and succinct. --FuriousFreddy 06:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this??--Jondel 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and ban user Arniep and other racists. - Darwinek 10:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as overly-broad. Marskell 10:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per 23skidoo -Doc ask? 13:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful list, keep the list of Jews as well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and Delete the list of Jews as well. Either that, or create a list of Caucasians and Asians. Grande 14:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom 61.1.132.145 16:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This anonymous user's only edit. --FuriousFreddy 06:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Valid encyclopedic topic. &mdash; RJH 17:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nominator's explanation is silly. However, per 23skidoo, this list is far too broad.  Obviously "List of African Americans " is useful.  Category:African Americans, or better one of its much narrower subcats, is a better approach generally.   A list with millions of names (or even tens of thousands of notables) is not useful. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See comments above. --FuriousFreddy 06:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Impossible list. It is not a hit-list, as many of the "List of [ethnicity/religion]" lists are, but it's also not useful. Geogre 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least this could act as some kind of index to other lists. JBH 22:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Note:This vote was JBH's 3rd edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits are in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bob talk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, this seems too broad to be useful in its present form - maybe it could be refactored as some sort of "list of lists" as JBH suggests. I don't have a binary keep/delete recommendation. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, both unmaintainable and pointless. This is what categories are for.Gateman1997 22:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Falls End (T, C) 22:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep break it up if it gets too big. CanadianCaesar 23:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No common sensed person is going to go on here to look at an enormous list of African Americans. (Notorious4life 05:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Um, Black History Month much? And I come to this list all the time to read on notable African-American individuals with Wikipedia articles (not all of the articles at the same time, more like random selection), and I know for certain I am very much a "common sensed person". And as far as huge, there's only a couple hundred names listed. The List of bands is much longer.--FuriousFreddy 06:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep dammit they have lists of people here. Encyclopedist (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 07:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep What dimwit listed this in the first place? Yes, certainly keep.  But change the title by adding "prominent" or "notable".  This comment about a necessary qualifier is true for lots of the lists of people on Wikipedia.  The way they're worded, any Tom, Dick or Harriet arguably could make the lists.  It's something that's been an annoyance for me for some time.  I just never mentioned it.  deeceevoice 09:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, we only have notable people on lists like that but that's implicit because they are lists of people with entries in the encyclopedia and we only have notable people in the encyclopedia to begin with. Adding "notable" to the name of every other list of people would be a bit cluttered - though I understand where you're coming from. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination.--Alabamaboy 14:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename as per "Notable"172.151.95.94 21:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; No valid reason provided for deletion. I've consistently voted to keep lists of this form and I see no reason to vote otherwise here. :) &mdash; RJH 15:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, do we have the following; List of Asian Americans, List of Caucasian Americans, List of Hispanic Americans, List of Native Americans? If not we should if this is kept.Gateman1997 01:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unmantainable.  Grue   17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per 23skidoo --Bob 20:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my original nomination, please Keep I nominated this in a fit of madness, I apologize for this very stupid behaviour. Arniep 01:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah. See what you started?  (giving Arniep a good, swift kick) It's stupid crap like this that makes being black on this website a real pain in the azz. I would suggest, however, that the list be categorized by field of achievement. (As it stands now, in this particular format, it's not terribly useful.) Then, if/when a particular category becomes clogged with names/overly long, it can be separated out into a stand-alone article/list, with only a category name and link to the list itself appearing in this rather catch-all list. deeceevoice 11:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete (I do wish Arniep would go a little easier on the AfD/CfD key on his keyboard). However, this one is extremely overbroad.  "African American ers" is OK, but not 40-50M potential names (or even tens of thousands of notable ones). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Ralph Bunche is my motivation. It ought to be an honor to be on such a list; if notable entries fill the list just as ordinary articles are vetted for notability, then what is the problem. Articles go through the selection process all the time. What is the motivation for wanting to keep a list of Star Wars topics but deleting a list with Ralphe Bunche on it? And if the answer is that 40-50 Million names could fill the list, then we need to uphold him as a standard for the 50 Million. We need to uphold him as a standard for the 6 Billion! Can you imagine a world where 50 Million were as notable as a Ralph Bunche? There would be 50 Million UCLAs and 50 Million Sculpture Gardens and 50 Million men who pursue just action at the risk of their lives! --Ancheta Wis 19:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, now. I second that emotion! :p deeceevoice 21:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - I abstain, as this decision should be taken on a wider basis covering all the ethnic lists (List of Italian Americans, List of Jewish Americans, List of Chinese Americans, etc. &mdash; PhilHibbs | talk 12:42, 28 November 2005 (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.