Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees


 * 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. Although I disagree with the statement at the bottom that there is an "overwhelming" consensus, (not a vote and all that) there is a rough consensus to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Aside from the fact that the article has been tagged as referenceless since March 2008 (that's 3 years), I don't believe there is any reason whatsoever to have an article which is a CONTENT FORK of the original Golden Globe awards article. The sole difference is that this article is based on all the black nominees and I find that highly trivial and unnecessary. All the black nominees are listed in their awards' appropriate article. There is no need to single them out here. Feed back  ☎ 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)  Feed  back  ☎ 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable "intersection" topic. See the highly relevant WP:OVERCAT: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OCAT only applies to categories, not lists in article space. postdlf (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * However WP:NOTDIR can apply to lists, and makes pretty much the same point. Bull dog123  13:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR is far less specific; "nonencyclopedic cross-categorization" is a rather indeterminate phrase that we must apply anew with each AFD. It really doesn't help us here because everyone still has to argue why this particular cross-categorization is or isn't nonencyclopedic.  postdlf (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything we can actually write about black people and the Golden Globes besides that both things exist and intersect? Has there ever been out-right racism at the Golden Globes or have black nominees ever been treated differently? If no, then how can we say it's a "cultural phenomenon?" Bull dog123  06:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Apparently this was created as trivia, but it isn't quite as "non-notable" a topic as one might think. However, even the article's contributors seem to have failed to notice how damn few black Golden Globe nominees there have actually been over the years.  The reasons for this aren't racism in the foreign press reporters (nor for the Academy Awards either).  But it's no secret that there are relatively few major roles for African-American actors in film and television, and even fewer for black actresses.   Honestly-- five nominations per year per category, and only 7 or 8 black actresses have ever been nominated in the last fifty years for best actress in either drama or comedy?  What's that work out to, 2 percent?  One nomination for a black director over the years?  Two nominations for a black screenwriter?   Out of all the nominations since 1943?   However, if the film and TV fans who maintain the article have somehow missed that, I don't hold out much hope that the article would ever have meaningful context.  I'm a (middle-aged) white guy, and I would wager that all of this article's contributors fit the definition of the stereotypical Wikipedian.  Mandsford 01:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A few years ago, List of black Academy Award winners and nominees was at AfD (see Articles for deletion/List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees). It was kept, in part, because there were sources that discuss the issue of black people being or not being nominated for the Oscars. (For some more recent examples, see, , , .) I haven't been able to find similar coverage of the issue of black people being or not being nominated for Golden Globes. That is not because of a lack of interest in the standing of African Americans in Hollywood, but because the Golden Globes are not that significant as an indicator of that. They are mostly the subject of public interest as a precursor to the Oscars, not as an end in themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I note that some sources have been added to the article, the majority of them appear to refer to the Golden Globes only incidentally, sometimes only in a single sentence. This level of media coverage is not even close to the level of media coverage discussing the nominations, or lack of nominations, for black people at the Oscars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Per Mandsford.  And the refs discoverable in the simplest of google searches, which reflect the strong notability of the intersection.  On a side note -- the lead point in the nomination is irrelevant to the issue of whether an article should be AfD'd or not.  The focus is on whether coverage exists, not on whether it is reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of this article is to have a trivial collection (WP:CRUFT) of information that is already in each awards' articles (WP:Content forking). If you think an article about few black nominees should exist, then you can go ahead and create an article that debates the issue and provides many sources that speak about the controversy (if there is one). However, a "list" of black winners is definitely non-notable wether the number of nominations is an issue or not. Feed  back  ☎ 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT and WP:OCAT - unless the intersection is one of a culturally distinct phenomenon (not merely one reported here and there in external sources) the crossover should not exist. There is nothing that distinguishes the Golden Globes and African Americans as notable topics to intersect. That this may interest a select minority seeking examples of famous African American actors is not enough to consider it "encyclopedic." Wikipedia is not for everything. Bull dog123  03:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you write "Strong Keep" in your edit summary? 04:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete
 * 1) There is no such thing as the "Black Golden Globe Awards", there's only the regular one. Unless Black became a proper noun all of a sudden this page is about a non-existent award. (If kept should be moved to List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees)
 * 2) Pointless racial segregation. Black people have been winning and nominated for decades.
 * 3) Nominations are not notable for there own articles, see the various lists with awards and lack of lists about nominations. Nominations go on the actors and the film articles, it does not warrant its own article.   X  eworlebi (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Epeefleche is going around adding this as a "See also" link on a series of articles.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which, frankly, should be immediately reverted... since doing so treats this list like a bio-specific category. Bull dog123  13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has good references now which demonstrate the notability of the topic. There seem to be plenty of other similar articles in Category:African-American culture and the work done here will complement them nicely. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bulldog123 reasons above.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Bulldog123. This is not a case like the oscars or presidential candidates (African American candidates for President of the United States ) where having black participants was considered to be a major game changer. Unlike the others, this wasn't considered a significant topic of civil rights or something that brought about major change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Even though I feel its stupid for people to separate themselves from their fellow human beings by the category of race for any reason, this does in fact get ample news coverage. They have news sources that specifically cover anything dealing with blacks, and the mainstream media even mentions race at times.  So surely coverage exist.  Lot of results to search through when I search for "African American" AND "Golden Globe award" and some results are not viewable without paying first.  If you search for the word "black" then even more results appear.   D r e a m Focus  08:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is now well referenced to a significant number of substantial reliable sources. In my opinion this is an acceptable content fork. Like it or not, there has been a considerable amount written about the neglect of black actors/actresses with major awards within the entertainment industry in the United States. The Oscars of course has received the most attention, but similar press coverage can be found on all the other major awards (Grammys, Emmys, Tonys, etc.) This list reflects that interest and organizes the Golden Globe winners content accordingly. There will be readers coming to wikipedia for this sort of information and there are reliable sources verifying this content. I see no valid reason to delete this useful list.4meter4 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, there has been a considerable amount written about the neglect of black actors/actresses with major awards within the entertainment industry in the United States Right... but how is this not a WP:OR-ish reason for keeping the list? We don't create lists to make points about the Hollywood Foreign Press Association's "neglect" of African Americans. Bull dog123  12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly is this original research? There is no original synthesis and similar lists have been published elsewhere, such as here. I can't see in what way OR applies to this particular article. If anything you seem to be objecting to the point of view of the article, which really isn't an AFD issue and should be sorted out on the article's talk page. The issue here is notability. Fact, other notable sources have published similar lists. Multiple reliable references support the list's content. Notability is clearly established per the criteria at WP:N. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes because we're judging whether or not this is an irrelevant intersection. I don't see the external refs that comment on the relevance of the intersection, because it needs to be "...in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Where does it say that Golden Globes and African Americans together form something "culturally significant?" Okay, you found the list published somewhere... well, a lot of places publish similar lists intersecting award winners of various backgrounds (Irish Echo, for example)... it doesn't meant they're all suitable for wikipedia. Bull dog123  13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already given a well reasoned arguement that satisfies the criteria of WP:N. Your need for someone to demonstrate "the relevance of the intersection" is frankly a red herring arguement and is tantamount to Wikilawyering. However, the answer to your question should be obvious. The fact that similar lists have been included in published works on the history of African-Americans in cinema (example given in my comment above) should be enough to demonstrate the relevance of the two topics. The source given wasn't just a random newspaper article, but a comprehensive 377 page book which analyzes cinema in the United States from the perspective of African-American history. Reguardless, you have yet to present a valid reason based on WP:N policy that this articles should be deleted. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I've already stated why this article should be deleted and that's because it's a cross-categorization of two disparate things (Golden Globes, black people) and not a "culturally distinct phenomenon" documented by external sources. I don't see how you can buy the argument that "because the list is published, it must mean the intersection is worthy of its own topic article African Americans and the Golden Globes." If you consider relevance to be a red herring, then bring the issue up at the talk page for WP:NOT -- maybe you can alter WP:NOTDIR where it says this type of combination is not notable. The article that you are !voting to keep is African Americans in cinema, not African Americans & The Golden Globes. Bull dog123  13:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I think the fact that such lists have been published in respectable works on African-Americans in cinema proves that this isn't random cross-categorization. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay so List of left-handed actors would also be legitimate per this published list of left-handed actors? Bull dog123  13:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or List of movies that involve math per http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/mathmovies/ ?--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are hardly fair comparisons. This is vearing off into WP:Otherstuffexists territory and is not helpful. We could easily point to other groups who might make a reasonable list, like List of LGBT winners of the Golden Globes. Let's discuss this list solely based on its own merits and evidence. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * keep per Mandsford. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and end this ridiculous assault on every ethnic category, list, and infobox entry in the project. Ethnicity is so incredibly tied to identity that to deny it in every place we can find on WP is a fool's errand. The fact is that people do have major perceptions of self and others based upon these qualities. A quick google scholar search for "ethnicity and identity" finds over 400,000 scholarly articles. Denial is original research - wishing that enthicity wasn't important to people's self-identity and their perceptions of others does not make it so. The sources talk about the topic as it is written, and we are ethically bound to follow the sources. This is clearly a notable topic, reliable sources cover it in sufficient detail to support the article, and we are obliged to keep and maintain it.  Jim Miller  See me 14:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Denial is original research - wishing that enthicity wasn't important to people's self-identity and their perceptions of others does not make it so. I presume you meant to say "careers" or "ability to win awards"... because otherwise your !vote seems to be in the wrong AfD. This isn't an AfD for the deletion of all mentions of ethnicity on Wikipedia. Now, regarding the WP:OR remark... Not nearly as much original research as saying that ethnicity (something somebody can choose to identify with) is important to their chosen career (even when they make no indication of that). You can pick and choose what to call original research very easily these days. I just find it unusual to call the "negative" (or non-existence) of something WP:OR. It's kind of like saying it's original research that we don't call Martin van Buren a Dutch-American United States president. I mean... after all... he is. Bull dog123  18:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In reviewing the contributions of the above account, it appears to be an WP:SPA with very limited contributions that do not involve the removal of ethnic designations from WP. I see no reason to respond to trolling.  Jim Miller  See me 19:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Garbage men are held in higher regard than those who produce the garbage. I'm okay with that. Since you're avoiding talking about the content of this article (instead choosing to talk about the nominator), I feel you have no legitimate reason for !keeping this particular list and so your two cents appear strangely irrelevant. Note that your claim "reliable sources cover it in sufficient detail" is a lot of horsesh*t. Not a single book or academic paper shows up on the subject, even though a book about the Oscars and African Americans shows up immediately. Retort? Bull dog123  06:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per 4meter4. The Golden Globes is obviously second fiddle to the Oscars, but it's still a very prominent award in American entertainment.  The topic of African Americans in entertainment, and (under)recognition of their accomplishments in major awards, is far from a random or irrelevant intersection.  Such lists are also a useful proxy for pointing out the most celebrated and prominent African Americans in film and television.  I'd recommend a move to List of African American Golden Globe Award winners and nominees unless there's a compelling reason to keep the title as it is.  postdlf (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the proposed move, not all the nominees listed here are American. At least one, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, is British. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Of all this series of nominations, this seems to me perhaps the most absurd. Acting is  one of the fields in which ethnicity  in all the different ways people designate it . A list --and a category also--is therefore appropriate. A list adds the possibility of specifiying some additional information, so should always supplement a category.    DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I also agree with User:Xeworlebi's point above that the capitalization of the title needs to be fixed.  Jim Miller  See me 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If we allow this list to exist, then we should definitely open a "List of Caucasian Golden Globe winners and nominees". There's no difference. By allowing this article to exist and not the latter, you're not being neutral. This list has absolutely no impact or cultural significance. "African Americans in Cinema would be a very culturally important article, but that isn't what we're voting for here. We're voting to either keep or delete a very TRIVIAL list that doesn't need placement in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, not a Golden Globes trivia handbook.  Feed  back  ☎ 16:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Give up. There is no policy-based (or common-sense-based) reason being used to keep this list (or similar such combinations). It's just one big, fat, nonsensical syllogism: A) Ethnicity can be defining B) People have jobs C) Therefore ethnicity is a defining factor in people's jobs.  Bull dog123  18:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable, encyclopedic topic backed by dozens of reliable and verifiable sources. This is what lists are for. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per outstanding improvements by editor Epeefleche. The ample references specifically about black people in the performing arts show that this sort of list is noteable and doesnt have to be OR. Dream is of course right that its a shame some choose to separate themselves from their brothers and sisters on grounds of race, but its a part of mainstream educational thinking that some members of minority groups benefit by being inspired with role models of their own ethnicity, so this sort of list is very valuable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All those references talk about African Americans and cinema which we all know is a very important cultural topic, but how is African Americans and the Golden Globes SPECIFICALLY important enough for its own article? Again, we're voting on wether this article should exist, not "The African American Struggle in the Performing Arts". It seems to me that you don't even know what you're voting for. Feed  back  ☎ 20:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The opening text of the article and the many refs that are in it, some of which are discussed above, are replete with such discussion of the intersection. Many of the !votes here, the majority of which are to keep the article, point to and/or discuss that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment No one is arguing that race in acting has had an important history, just that race in the Golden Globes has never been a significant topic. This really would set a problematic precedent. Race in business has had an important history. Race in crime has had an important history. Should every award in a field that has been affected by race have lists split up by race? Should we have an article on "List of black rapists" "List of Asian drug dealers" or "List of white armed robbers" because race is an important issue in crime? Should the Mark Twain prize have a list for each race since race has been an important issue in comedy?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The point here is that multiple reliable independent sources, including academic publications and major news organizations, have discussed the Golden Globe Awards within the context of African-American History and race in general. Per wikipedia's notability guidelines, those multiple reliable sources are what confer notability on this topic. If and when your above examples also are supported by multiple substantial reliable sources, than feasibly such lists could be created. However, it is unlikely that the absurb examples you gave above would be supported by enough sources to ever pass WP:N. Stop using false comparisons please.4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking through the sources, and race in the golden globes seems to be mentioned as either a tidbit in an article about a black person winning, or in the case of the book on blacks in cinema, just in an appendix. We could also find countless articles on, say, celebrities wearing a particular suit or brand of glasses, but we don't have "People who wear X." And don't say that couldn't be sourced, I guarantee I could find you a million people magazine articles about all the celebrities who have worn a particular dress best, or whatever.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * actually, I think we probably could have a list of "Notable film characters wearing clothing designed by Adrian" Some intersections are significant enough.    DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I see no problem with list of black rapists. There are multiple reliable sources that document the link between race and rape... especially black on white rape. It seems way more relevant that the connection between the Hollywood Foreign Press Association's statue and race. Here's the first one on google . And here's the cat: Category:Rapists_by_nationality Bull dog123  06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference there. Films with clothes by Adrian would be the equivalent of a filmography, something perfectly acceptable and encyclopedic, and totally different from the "who wore it best" kind of lists I was referring to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per above arguments. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasonable and policy based arguments for keeping and per improvements made since nomination.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudos to User:Epeefleche for the work done on improving this article and putting this into context. Mandsford 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You realize that all User:Epeefleche did was add references right? He literally changed nothing of the actual content in the article.  Feed  back  ☎ 14:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, to give him credit, I think he added all that worthless WP:TRIVIA at the top. Stuff like In 2009, when Black actor Tracy Morgan was awarded a Golden Globe, he joked: "I'm the face of post-racial America. Deal with it, Cate Blanchett.". Great. Instead of a random ethnicity/occupation list, we have a big repository of loosely-associated factoids with no order or logical flow. Yup, "kudos."  Bull dog123  16:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's about time for this to be ruled on.. I hope it says, "the result was keepos" Mandsford 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tx. Agreed.  The overwhelming consensus appears to be to keep, as I see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (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.