Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of topics related to Black and African people


 * 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. None of the arguments for deletion address issues that cannot be repaired with some (relatively) simple editing, and there is no evidence that previous attempts have been made to address the issue via tagging/discussion. Therefore this is a full "keep" closure rather than "no consensus". Shereth 14:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

List of topics related to Black and African people

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Generic lists of lists of articles. No references. No particular ordering (not by date, not by importance). Better done by existing category and template structure, such as Pan-African and African American topics sidebar.
 * Delete --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Overly vague list. Determining what "relates" to blacks is too subjective. Blacks watch TV, smoke cigarettes and drive cars. Are those "related" to blacks? Has no defineable criteria. The list is trying to be all things to all topics. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider dividing. It might be better to have this on African topics, and a separate one for the diaspora. It is in the US anyway reasonably clear what topics relate to the Black experience in the US.  I do not consider any of the ones on the list  totally out of place, though some deal with the experience of Black people along with other minorities. The place to discuss any that are questioned is the talk page, as usual. DGG (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean. One would assume that almost every American topic would somehow relate to the "black experience" in the US. — Rankiri (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and so they would, if one wrote the specific article relating it. And so we should. We would not have "Kansas" on this list, but Blacks (or Afro-Americans) in Kansas history is a very appropriate topic. The best way of going forward at present would be to see if there are other articles to add here, and write the 100s or 1000s of appropriate ones we are probably missing.   DGG (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because everything in the nomination is specifically refuted by WP:CLN. There are very good reasons to have lists as well as categories.  I can watchlist a list.  I can make a list sortable by criteria other than alphabetical order.  Wikipedians can usually use categories effectively, but end-users (i.e. non-Wikipedians) find lists easier to use; few of them are even aware of categories.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd agree with you. But this has no annotation, no criteria for inclusion, no sorting. I'd prefer to stick to the actuality, rather than some hoped for pie in the sky.


 * Keep per User:DGG] & User:S Marshall. Useful, well organized list. However, I think the article title is misleading - presumably it means Black Africans, thus excluding articles on Rhodes, Smith, Botha, etc. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 02:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Niteshift36. Indiscriminate hodgepodge of topics that juxtaposes African American & Afro-Caribbean subjects with, among other things, completely unrelated topics such as the North African caliphates and Aboriginal rock. Selection appears to have been based on highly subjective criteria as to what exactly constitutes a "black" civilization or topic; see discussion. Also runs afoul of WP:SALAT as listing is too broad in scope. Soupforone (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete way too broad (WP:SALAT violation) and Niteshift summed it up perfectly. Blacks do a lot of things and there is no reason why these are listed while others aren't. Tavix | Talk  19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can it be renamed into something less ambiguous? List of ethnological topics related to black people, perhaps? Otherwise, I tend to agree with Niteshift36 and the others: the list is simply too broad in scope and would have to adopt an excessively segregationist inclusion criteria in order to stay manageable and useful. — Rankiri (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the name of the article and the scope can be fine tuned, but the list article is a very useful encyclopedic and helpful catalog of topics. The sbuject areas covered are very notable and I think it's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the list has a lot of blue links, to relevant categories, and is thus valid. The name should be changed.  The word Africa should not be included in it, since you aren't talking about the white South Africans, or the Arabs of the Egypt or other north African nations.    D r e a m Focus  20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The list does have non-black related topics and plenty of them (ex. Almohad Caliphate, Almoravid dynasty, Ayyubid dynasty, etc.), so a simple page-rename definitely won't solve it. That's actually a large part of the problem; see discussion. Soupforone (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per soupforone. Alefbe (talk) 20:14, 11 July 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.