Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black billionaires (4th 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 was keep. Grandmasterka 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black billionaires (4th nomination)

User:MasterEagle tried to revive the discussion on the previous AfD, giving the reason "Remove, racist". Keep from me by the way. See also previous nomination Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other previous deletions are listed on the article's talk page. Gazpacho 22:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as trivial. The ethnicity of a billionaire is an arbitrary distinction, like billionares over 6 feet tall. There are also problems over who should be called black, as seen on the talk page. Finally, it could spawn other articles, like Asian American billionaires, German billionaires or articles based upon religion, like Catholic billionaires or Mormon billionaires. -- Kjkolb 08:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm pretty sure it'd be impossible for it to spawn German Billionaires, much as I cannot assassinate JFK. WilyD 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I forgot to mention original research, as the information is culled from a wide variety of sources that are not on the subject of black billionaires, but just mention the person's wealth or are about the state of blacks in general (none of the sources I checked (about half of them) were specifically about the subject of black billionaires, but there might be a couple).
• Comment I agree with Kjkolb, however I also have to look at the fact that people may use this article for research purposes for specifically looking for black billionaires. Ideally, I would make a new article called List of billionaires by ethnicity (see:List of billionaires by nationality) to avoid singling out just black people and have it list actual names instead of just numbers. Perhaps the page could be moved to the new name, and have what is currently there under a section for black people, and allow others to add people of other ethnicities. VegaDark 11:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • With the revealing that this is actually the 4th nomination, and the 3rd nomination being closed so recently, I have to vote Speedy Keep based on that alone. However my comments still stand that I think this should be renamed/moved. VegaDark 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no basis for deletion given. Nobody said Wikipedia was color-blind. Didn't this article just come through AfD in the past month with two relistings? If not, which one am I thinking of? Gazpacho 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopaedic, sourced. For what it's worth, this is (at least) the 4th nomination, not second as indicated, and two have been within the last month or so. WilyD 14:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but thanks for nominating it. Everytime this article gets nominated for deletion, it comes out better-sourced, better-writen, and better-balanced. One more nom. and we'll have a GA. One last thing -- it's not original research to take established, verified facts and established, published opinions from other sources and combine them into one place. That's what encyclopedias do. --M@rēino 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is often covered in the popular press and it is referred to by many scholars, (for example bell hooks and Gena Dagel Caponi, to pick two in a rush). It is also a recurrent focus of attention in urban music and hip hop culture. Pia 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pure editorialising. Irredeemably POV by its mere existence. Piccadilly 01:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is factual and useful. Obsession for the politically correct is counterproductive and unreasonable.--Húsönd 02:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Racist, skin colour doesn't matter. 219.88.174.62 03:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edit - user is also apparently unfamiliar with the article. WilyD 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It rambles on about this and that. And if you pruned it back, it would be pointless. It isn't terrible writing, but it isn't very encyclopedaic. Brianyoumans 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Poorly written isn't a criterion for deletion, but rather for improvement. What differentiates this from an essay is that it is a sourced, encyclopaedic article that contains no original research, even if the organisation of the article could stand to be spruced up (it has recently undergone a lot of content additions, which are still settling). WilyD 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not trivial. It's not at all racist (in fact, the lower section addresses the issue of racism quite well). The entry is factual, educational, and encouraging towards people of all races, particularly those with a history of oppression. Mugaliens 14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. How the heck is this notable? And are "black" billionaires inherently different from other billionaires? Information of racial disparity belongs at the article on racial disparity.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article alludes to the fact that being a black billionaire is especially notable because black people were uniformly denied economic opportunity until the 1960s (that's not my POV, that's history, see apartheid, Jim Crow laws, etc.). If you think that the article doesn't cover it enough, let me know and I can beef it up with some history texts. --M@rēino 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I say that you should do that, otherwise this article is going to get nominated again and again - Blood red sandman 15:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Doesn't matter too, much, nth nominations are increasingly unsuccessful as n becomes large. WilyD 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's notable because it's received multiple instances of press coverage and research from a variety of independant sources. If you'll look at the essays, guidelines or proposed guidelines that deal with notability, you'll find that Lots of press coverage or Books on the subject mean that a subject is notable. Wikipedia:Notability is not subjective is a good guideline if you don't understand why this subject is unarguably notable. WilyD 15:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What about white billionaire? I mean if this stays it must be ok to make that article right? Its a horrible article, its just racist seperating 'black' billionaires from everyone else. But again havning a article about all the white billionaires must to be acceptable if this article stays, right?--Coasttocoast 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment (in reply to Coasttocoast): People should not be denied the right to write about an issue just because there is nothing worthwhile to say about a corresponding white phenomenon. If such a policy is reinforced, wiki contributors better get busy composing articles about white civil rights movements, white minority struggles, white racial profiling (uhm, and how about an article on DWW, "driving while white"?), or the corresponding article about such issues in the black community would risk being deleted or not given a place. There is nothing remarkable whatsoever about being included in the rank of the billionaires while being a white male, the reason being that the odds are stacked in your favor. Beating the odds makes for notability. I also want to add: if a child is told to stop dreaming and set realistic goals because there is no such thing as a black billionaire, in my opinion that child should be able to type the phrase "black billionaires" into a search engine and a wiki article should pop up that addresses this issue in a NPOV, encyclopedic, as well as non-Eurocentric, way. And that child should not have to search through a long list of billionaires to try to figure things out. Pia 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find multiple, reliable sources about white billionaires specifically, feel free to write the article. I suspect you'd have a dilly of a time getting such an article past WP:V unlike this article, which passes it with flying colours. WilyD 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• To Coasttocoast: please read my above comments. I am aware that some younger people actually don't learn about the civil rights movement in history class, so I don't get offended, but if you poke around some history books at your local library you'll find out that being both Black and wealthy is indeed extremely remarkable because most of the nations on earth had laws explicitly to prevent Black accumulation of wealth. --M@rēino 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

STRONG SPEEDY KEEP Stop wasting the valuable time of wikipedia volunteers by nominating the same article over & over. This artilce is excellent by all standards and contains lots of excellent data...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk • contribs) --M@rēino 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unnecessary article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyse (talk • contribs)
  • I'm not sure unnecessary is a criterion for deleting a sourced, encyclopaedic article. WilyD 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong Keep This article is extremely necessary and an excellent addition to numerous wikipedia categories including pan-africanism, development, lists of people by wealth, Africa related lists, and just about anything relating to race, economics, black issues or any combination of the above. If we can have articles called German Billionaires and List of British military and naval figures by wealth at death we can most certainly have an article on Black billionaires, especially since, as Mareino pointed out, being Black and a billionaire is especially noteworthy because until very recently Blacks were institutionally excluded in many countries like virtually no other race, and with the possible exception of certain dictators (which Forbes could not confirm) Black billionaires did not even exist until the 21st century; so for members of the most historically oppressed race to reach to reach the pinnacle of success in a trait as universally worshipped as wealth is noteworthy in the extreme. This topic is even more noteworthy when one considers that currently the world’s only Black billionaire is a woman and self-made, and historically it’s virtually unheard for a woman to rise independently to the highest economic level in any race, ethnicity, or culture. In addition, this article fills a necessary void, since virtually all the articles about racial economic inequality are confined to specific places (i.e. America, Africa) and limited to discussions of poverty. This is probably the first article to discuss Black economic inequality at the highest level, and the fact that it does so from an international perspective makes it all the more relevant. Considering how noteworthy the topic is, and considering how extensive, useful, and well sourced the information is (relying on authoritative business magazines like Forbes), and considering how many categories this article fits into to, only a fool would advocate deleting it. Editingoprah 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep and please stop nominating the subject is factual and very important Yuckfoo 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep no valid reason for this afd given.  ALKIVAR™ 13:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, no valid basis for deletion has been provided in this malformed nomination. RFerreira 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this article is far from noteworthy. It's relatively poorly written, and(from a non-white), VERY bias and POV. The article tells one side of many different examples.(Like the oprah arriving past CLOSING time of a store and getting denied access, but it only depects OPRAH'S side, not the side of the store or the employees, very POV) Black Billionares is a bad idea for an article. Where are the White Billionares or the Asian Billionares, or Jewish billionares? Just because there are very few doesn't mean that the article is noteworthy. And no matter how "oppressed" a race was(which by the way, oppression is relative, and I personally believe that, by FAR, the Jewish race was the most oppressed), just for the fact that it was oppressed does not mean it should have an article, unless that article specifically deals with oppression. Liquidtenmillion 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment POV is not a deletion criteria. Also the person who wrote the article not being white is defently not a criteria. By that logic a person that playes video games should not be allowed to write an aricle about one. --My old username 23:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There's an article on German billionaires. If you think Jewish billionaires are just as worthy of an articles as Black ones are then do something useful and create one, don't do something destructive by voting to delete this one. I think an article on Jewish billionaires would be excellent and quite note-worthy and provide helpful information to those interested in Jewish wealth, just as this article is useful to people interested in Black wealth. But I can't stand people who just go around trying to get other articles that other people have worked hard on deleted, just because the information doesn't seem important to them.
• Comment Good point. It would have been relevent if a Jewish billionaire article was deleted for similar reasons but that was not the case. --My old username 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete With only one definitively Black billionaire, this article is hardly merited. Oprah's article provides sufficient information in that regard, and the rest of the article is full of near-Blacks, near-billionaires, not-quite-billionaires, would-be-billionaires, and wide-ranging speculation about race, economics, apartheid, athletes, and celebrities. The article is written in a decidedly POV fashion, and I'm not sure that any number of attempts at neutrality could redeem it. Save the topics this article touches on for in-depth discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia. --S0uj1r0 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There's only one Black Billionaire right now, but there's been more than one in the past and this article documents that and is historically informative. Why is okay to have an article on German Billionaires that covers only one country during one year, but not an article on entire human race that is a tenth of humanity, spans every continent, and is described over history? And not everyone who wants information on black billionaires will know to go to Oprah's article nor will they only be interested in the current Black billionaire. This article is full of facts and figures and is more encyclopedic than most Editingoprah 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Who ever said it was 'okay' to have an article on German Billionaires? Is everyone assuming that German Billionaires has received Wikipedia's infallible approval just because it's article isn't on the AfD page yet? I think it's ridiculous as well. However, this is an AfD for Black billionaires, and the existence or nonexistence of German Billionaires neither explicitly nor implicitly condones the necessity or lack thereof for Black billionaires. I see that many made the claim repeatedly that if one exists another ought to as well; that is a weak claim, and people voting on this AfD ought to make more cogent and less specious arguments. A given article does not exist to give complicit license for another article's existence. Also, this isn't a popularity contest, and it's not about cutting down Blacks and lifting up Germans; don't misconstrue it as such. My own stance is that both articles are unmerited and I'll vote "Delete" on German Billionaires as well if someone cares to put it up for deletion. --S0uj1r0 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The fact that there are so few makes the article more interesting. The fewer the number the more attention it brings. I must agree that on a relevant scale, the german billionaire article deserves the boot first. Lets not start the Wiki-prejudice game guys.

• Comment These two claims are equally unsound. Wikipedia does not need an article on One-armed cello players simply because there are very few, and the only interest to be derived from such can be saved for circuses and talent shows. As far as relevancy goes, I don't think either are relevant, and this isn't about which one "gets deleted first". As I stated above, this is not a popularity contest. It's also not tit for tat; this isn't some sort of "trade" for deletions. Consider this article and vote for or against deletion on its own merits. I think they both deserve the axe, and if you care to nominate German Billionaires, I'll vote to delete it regardless of how Black billionaires results. I think it's Wikipedia:Listcruft, uninteresting, and unencyclopedic. --S0uj1r0 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think either article desrves the axe and certainly not this one. Billionaires are arguabley the most important people in society, and Blacks are a race with a noteworthgy social history. This article is more notebale and encyclopedic that 99% of wikipedia. Editingoprah 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment If the article were called Half-Chinese gay mechanics in California in 2006 then I could understand its lack of relevance. But an article about how members of arguabley the most oppressed people of all time, a tenth of humanity, joined the most elite, admired, successful and powerful demographic on Earth, and currently the only Black member comes from the most oppressed gender, is an article of far reachinmg global sociological and historical significance. When was the last time a woman has been the richest member of her race? To compare it to an article on One-armed cello players demonstrates a lack of perspective and an ignorance of history. Editingoprah 19:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Are you claiming that one-armed cello players don't face social adversity? But you're right, I did trivialize a bit, and my analogy isn't spot on. Oprah is the only Black billionaire, so this article is more like Governors of the State of Minnesota Nicknamed 'The Body'. It's a nonspecific article that applies specifically to only one person. Save the issues oppression and economic hardship for African_American#Economic_Status where it doesn't stand on its own. --S0uj1r0 20:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: George W. Bush is the world's only American president and has been for several years now, so I guess you better go delete the American presidents article. This article is arguabley more note-worthy than that one since more people aspire to wealth than to political office, billionaires are the people who pretty much decide who gets to be president so if presidents are noteworthy, billionaires are too, and Black related articles are just as relevant as American related articles, since many Blacks are American and the global Black population outnumbers the American population 2 to 1. Editingoprah 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment:We are not here to argue about whether or not the American president article, which has N O T H I N G to do with the Black Billionaires article(except for the fact that it is a list). 1. There have been MANY american presidents, and they are static, sourced, and encyclopedic, in that it doesn't go off on 20 tangents. 2. Just because people aspire to something doesn't mean that it is noteworthy. I'd say VERY few people aspire to sexually abuse children, but yet we WAIT, we have an article for it. We'd better delete it then, since nobody want's to aspire to it, it MUST be non-noteworthy. 3. Billionaires make up significantly less than 1% of the population, so it'd be hard to get that few people to influence the stupid and poor majority, except through advertisement, which probably wouldn't sway anybody too far from what they initially believed anyawy. 4. I am the person who pretty much decides what food I will eat today. So if food is noteworthy, then I am too. 5. This article is not up for deletion because it is "black related". That's, well, fucking stupid. There are many, many "black related" articles that are not up for deletion at this very second. Maybe this is just a specific aritlce that is being specifically targeted for deletion for specific reasons, unrelated to ethnicity? 6. Asians are Americans, and the global asian population outnumbers the American population 6 to 1. Where is my Asian billionaire article? Your argument offers more arguments about why the American Presidents article should be DELETED than why the black billionaires article should be kept. I think it should be deleted simply because its POV, and there has been no effort to make it NPOV, and because it is more of a list of non black billionaires than it is of black billionaires themselves. Liquidtenmillion 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please try and calm down. First you asked where your Asian billionaire aricle is? In fact the richest Asians are not limited to one article, they get five, without any controversy: List of Singaporeans by net worth, China Rich List, South East Asia Rich List, List of Korean billionaires and multi-millionaires,List of Hongkongers by net worth. And yet a single article on Black billionaires generate four nominations for deletion. Never mind the fact that Black economic developement was stunted by slavery, colonization, and apparteid, segration, Jim Crowe laws, and world-wide racism that is as old as recorded history and so Black billionaires are a special case. Never mind the fact that the Asian articles deal with highly specific sub-groups, while this article is broad enough in scope to focus on the entire Negroid race-one of the three broadest racial groups in anthropology and ten times more relevant because of its international population. And this article is extremely well sourced in that it relies primarily on Forbes magazine wealth valuations, the most authoritative business magazine. And how is this article any less static than the presidents one. The current president changes once every several years and so does the number, and identity of Black billionaires. And as for your earlier charge that this article is biased towards a non-white POV, this article depends on Forbes which is run by rich White Republicans. The articles cites several examples of corrupt Black billionaires and half-billionaires including dictators who allegedly exploited their own people. Yes the section about racism may be a little one-sided, but in the case of Oprah, the store's CEO agreed she was right and apologized on her show, so all an encyclopedia can do is report the official statements. The part about racism preventing Michael Jackson from reaching billionaire status does come off as paronoid POV, but at the same time many in the Black community are paranoid about racism holding successful Blacks back, and so this is a noteworthy perspective that needs to be reported on in a neutral way. If you feel the presentation was too biased, then the constructive thing to do is find alternative sources that present alternative opinions. It's not helpful to try to delete an article that deals with an important Black demographic that no other article can discuss in detail. Editingoprah 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The differences between Black Billionares and List of Singaporeans by net worth, China Rich List, South East Asia Rich List, List of Korean billionaires and multi-millionaires, and List of Hongkongers by net worth collectively is that the latter happen to actually contain more than one person and are lists of such. Black billionaires, on the other hand, might more acurately be named "Black billionaire" since there's only Oprah, and is not a list, but rather a launchpad for POV about the various reasons there are not more Black billionaires, why Michael Jackson and Oprah are rich but still discriminated against, etc. That article lacks focus. If you want to change the article to List of Blacks by net worth, that would be an improvement. Then there would be more than just Oprah, allegations of racism, and various, unfocused conjecture. --S0uj1r0 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment There's only one Black billionaire right now but the article goes into great detail about past Black billionaires and the prospects of future Black billionaires. There's only one American president right now but that doesn't stop there from being a list of American presidents. And what's wrong with discussing allegations of racism since they are sourced and the focus of much socal tention and it's very note worthy that even the richest Blacks feel discriminated against. Editingoprah 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and "prospects of future Black billionaires" do not belong on it. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As such, a list of American Presidents is entirely acceptable. I already stated that a List of Blacks by net worth would likely be acceptable, verifiable, and encylopedic. Allegations of racism have nothing to do with Black billionaries in particular that they don't have to do with Blacks in general, and they belong at African_American#Economic_Status. You've repeated these two claims of yours again and again, and I've disputed their merit multiple times and using multiple criteria. Please try to address my counter-arguments rather than simply restating yourself. --S0uj1r0 04:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As you said Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. I believe the events described in the article meet this criteria. Take Tiger Woods for example. The prospects of him, a part-Black man becoming a billionaire athlete in a White dominated sport is considered virtually inevitable by the numerous sources discussed and is so noteable that a popular magazine created the chart cited in the article about Tiger's march to $1 billion. And you also have the whole race to become hip-hop's first billionaire. The is not "future history" or extrapolation. It is simply reporting on a much hyped note-worthy competetition that provides much insight about the cultural value the idea of a black billionaire has in hip-hop culture and society at large. I really think you need to step out and look at this from a different perspective. There's more than enough encyclopedic content to produce an article on Black billionaires. It's not just the number of Black billionaires themselves but it's their changing net-worth as a fucntion of year, it's the yearly change in the percentage of Black billionaires among the total number of billionaires, and there's the constantly changing comparison between the net-worth of the richest or only Black billionaire compared to the richest person period. There's also data on Billionaire with partial Black ancestry. The data is far too detailed and far too international (see the membership chart) to be limited to the discussion of African-American economics. And the discrimination against Black billionaires is on a totally different level than the discrimination against Blacks at large, and what better place to discuss it than artice about Black billionaires. Everyday Blacks are discriminated against because they are assumed to be poor or because they may appear physically threatening. But alleged discrimination against Black billionaires appears to be resentment that "these people" having surpassed society's expectations for what a Black can accomplish and attempts to knock them down a peg. If you feel this is too POV then balance with quotes of people claiming Blacks are just paranoid. But I find it the most fascinating discussion I've ever seen in wikipedia and do not wish to see it marginalized to just a sub-section of another article. There are all kinds of Black scholars who have all kinds of theories of why ther aren't more Back billionaires. You may call that a POV launch pad but I call it sociological theories, and reporting on theories is what encyclopedia's do. If you feel the theories are too slanted to the political left, then feel free to add right-wing theories. But please stop advocating the deletion of this article because it's my favorite article on wikipedia. Editingoprah 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Trivial and non-notable. Ckessler 05:17, 12 September 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.