Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-African

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 delete. No credible sources or other evidence have been presented that this can be anything other than neologism and original research (very obviously politically-motivated original research at that). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-African

Strong Delete or redirect to Racism. Neologism, see WP:NEO. Also this article's topic is covered quite well in Racism. Term does not seem to be in popular or even scholarly usage. As a neologism, it is primarily an article of origional research violating WP:NOR and thus is not verifiable or reliable, see WP:VERIFY. The term is hardly similar to "orientalism," it's closer to "anti-semitism" as it is used in this article. Note that the article claims that Darwin, Kant, and Hume were anti-African. These individuals did not concern their work with people of African descent and it's quite a stretch to imply otherwise. This article is not encyclopedic. This article is also confusing its own relationship between African and black. For instance, the article's image depicts the prejudice against black individuals, not prejudice against someone because they are of African origion. Discrimination against people of such descent is not always based on the fact that they are from Africa, so much as it is stereotyping the color of an indvidual's skin. Further, the article does not establish notability or importance and confuses anti-Africanism with racism against black people thus over-simplifying the view of African culture and ignoring the plight of blacks from areas such as Australia and the Carribean.Strothra 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A.J.A. 05:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Created by User:Halaqah who is currently on crusade to spread his ideology and grow visibility for Halaqah Media company (and affiliated websites) through WP. The user is aggressively singleminded and very active to reach his goals. Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep:While the article is of poor quality, that does not mean it mustBold text be deleted. Prejudice against Africans is a very real problem with deep historical roots. The first European explorers to Africa wrote that "Black people are a result of man mating with Baboons" (I think it was Stanley & Livingstone who wrote it). Even Ibn-Batuta (himself an African from Morocco) had prejudices against "darker" Africans in the South and was pejorative to African kings like Mansa Suleiman and Mansa Musa. This establishes the historical bigotry.Slavery was a result of the belief that Africans are racially inferior to Arabs and Europeans. Also, contemporary anti-African bigotry comes from Christian missionaries in Ethiopia and other countries.Plus, the Darfur Genocide is a result of the Arab janjaweed killing the more "Black" Sudanese Africans.Apartheid is another exapmple.Hkelkar 03:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, the white Africans responsible for Apartheid were just as African as the black Africans they imposed it on. Cynical 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - per HkelkarBakaman _Bakatalk 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keepLet me set the record straight, some people are on a mission to attack me because 1. I added the image of the white angel killing the devil, 2. I added a sub chapter on Slavery to the Christianity section. Mr Paul has been on a crusade to destroy all my contributions (validity aside). He seems to think the name Halaqah means i am Halaqah Films (a film company). It is like saying someone with the name Ford is the Ford foundation. Or Sankofa means you work for the film Sankofa or the organization Sankofa Either way to adding of correct information is a valid enterprise. You would find that in certain academic circles everyone knows everyone, there is a natural connection between people, how else would i know the details of Molefi Asante so who i am is irrelevant the work has to valued on merit and accuracy. The anti-African writing on this site is amazing. Just read the Transatlantic slave trade. History of Africa. Already there is Nanjing anti-African protests and then someone is saying Anti-African the root word in an article valid in wikipedia isn’t relevant and should be deleted because it offends their sensibility. Already the content of this have been used in many forums. Everyone has an opinion, this entire site is a collection of opinions, it is libelous to make attacks on people without any single retort to the presented facts. I would like this person to cease and desist their racist attacks--Halaqah 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and then Redirect to Racism. "Anti-African" is not only a WP:NEOlogism, it's incorrect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete CarlosRodriguez 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP!!!100% the term anti africn is absolutely necessary a term which is used and relevant.--Sunara 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this comment is the user's first and only contribution to wiki.--Strothra 13:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to the article title Prejudice against Africans would be appropriate, and merging relevant info from this article into it would be fine - but most of the article seems quite sloppy, with very little keepable info. The use of the "term" Anti-African is simply combinational, just as much as the word anti-white, anti-european, anti-pokemon, or anti-startrek may also have limited currency - only relevant as a turn of phrase (ie of being against the suffix in question). Prejudice against Africans is by far a more appropriate encyclopedic title for exploring a very important and notable topic of interest. Themindset 19:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and remove that darn picture, it is of the archangel Michael and Pope Innocent X, an Italian. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Anti-Africanism is a form of racism. So is Anti-Semitism. Does anyone want to redirect that too to 'racism'? There are specific historical causes for each. For instance the point of view of civilized people to admire large and lasting constructions as found in the other numerously populated continents, but used to be lacking in Black Africa, caused disregarding the value of societies that had managed to survive close to the original natural surroundings of mankind without creating great edifices. Still few people realize that such may be a sign of solid control and of success, compared to surviving by constantly and increasingly deviating from what evolution has made us be. — SomeHuman 19 Oct 2006 00:14 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is not a form of racism. In it's popular usage, anti-semitism refers to being anti-Jewish, not actually anti-semitic which has a different meaning altogether. Judaism is a faith intertwined with a culture - ie not a race. Thus, there is no reason to merge anti-semetism into racism. Further, anti-semetic is a phrase in both popular and scholarly use; Anti-African is not.--Strothra 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Anti-Semitism is not exactly racism, although a literal interpretation of the name would be. I suppose a literal interpretation of Anti-African wouldn't be racism, although this article is about racism. Still more reason to delete or redirect (without a merge). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.--Strothra 14:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Both have racial and non-racial aspects. Which one is felt to be prevailing in either case, depends on which person commits it, on which person experiences anti-semitism or anti-africanism, and on whether one is not quite at that receiving end. For instance, the nazi regime did not 'discriminate' on religious basis but purely by ethnicity. Consider WP:CSB when comparing both topics. — SomeHuman 19 Oct 2006 16:31 (UTC)

You are confusing ethnicity and race. Anti-semitism, in its popular usage, refers to ethnicity and religion - not race. Anti-African refers to a people of an entire continent and does not refer to either ethnicity or race. African is not an ethnicity - the continent is one of the most ethnically diverse besides Asia - nor is African a race. Yet, the term as this article defines it regards race. Thus, this article is best redirected to racism because its definition clearly conflicts with the terminology. There are no works of literature on Anti-Africanism from which one may draw a proper definition and description which would make sense. --Strothra 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not confusing: deliberately not making that kind of distinction in this respect. Anti-Africanism is rarely or never used to literally the whole continent, but mainly to Black Africa, just as Anti-Americanism is not directed against a whole continent either, and – unlike the disputed article's topic – not at all against the historically most native inhabitants. Taking terms like these literally in an argumentation is rather demagogical. — SomeHuman 20 Oct 2006 00:43 (UTC)

• Redirect to racism. Cynical 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

see discussion section for more discussion[1]

• Delete per nomination. The article is original research and does not cite verifiable sources. Edits appear to be politically motivated with no scholarly basis. Akanksha 17:51, 21 October 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.