Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black billionaires

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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black billionaires

Technical nomination of what appears to be an incorrectly-done AfD. No opinion from me -- yet. TheProject 17:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, though I predict it'll be difficult to keep this article away from POV and original research. Subject is notable and verifiable; race and economic status is the subject of quite a bit of research and debate. — AKADriver ☎ 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable topic. Maybe rename it to something else, but I'm not sure what would be better. Jdcooper 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per AKADriver - big issues about race and money, will be an increasingly interesting and important article. Iancaddy 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but could we clean the thing up a bit? - Richardcavell 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Message I tagged the article for clean-up. If it is kept it definetly needs it. OSU80 00:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV. Contrasting Oprah Winfrey and African dictators is orginal analysis. Scranchuse 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• comment The page has also been created anew at "black billionaires" - without the AfD tag. I think that version of the page should be deleted as soon as possible, but it doesn't technically appear to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. GRBerry 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I got bold and switched that version to be a redirect to this page. GRBerry 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per POV. 1652186 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no encyclopedic content, taken from rumors and chats instead to listing reliable statistics. Pavel Vozenilek 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I have tidied the article and backed the rumors and chats (see above) with actual refs. --Oscarthecat 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but leave that stub tag on it for a while, this is a weak article. GRBerry 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs major cleanup. Amalas =^_^= 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but needs major rewrite; there is a potentially interesting article here. Saga City 10:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also agree that its an interesting topic and worthy of more attention. It doesn't really come off POV as far as I can see. I agree though that the title should probably be changed.--Adrift* 16:11, 15 May 2006 (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.