Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people (ethnicity)

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. If anyone feels like merging this content somewhere, it is available on request; in this case please provide a link to this discussion. Sandstein 08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black people (ethnicity)

Black people (ethnicity) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• STRONG DELETE: This article is a POV, it is the result of an unsettled dispute, there is already an African People article, a Black People article and an African American article, there is no reason for this additional black people article which is here to articulates a very American view of who and what black people are. It offers no Encyclopedic value just a POV fork. The content borders on Original research. It should be merged in African American (where this info exist) or merged back into black people where this info came from. and adding black is not an ethnic group.--Halaqah 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article creation borderline violation of WP:POINT. Also, "black" is a social construction, not an ethnicity. --Strothra 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per user:Halaqah and user:Strothra. Merge unnecessary, as reasonable content already exists at race, Bantu, African American, etc. Jd2718 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be a POV fork of black people. If for some reason this article survives, it should be renamed Black (ethnicity). Koweja 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per user:Halaqah and user:Strothra, if it survives it should be renamed as American Views on Black Ethnicity. Alf photoman 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- also see Black as a skin color identity. This is all fallout from the endless debate in the Black people article about who "owns" that term. I'm not sure how this can be resolved, but forking articles like this is not the way to do it. Perhaps, as Alf says, a new article on American views on Black ethnicity might be one way to make forward progress. -- The Anome 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion can be a sub section in the black people article, no need for another topic just to articulate a view which probably only a few African Americans adhere to.--Halaqah 02:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no need for a rush to judgment. The general topic is an absolute mess of arguments over undefined (or individually defined) terms. [Race] is a "myth" (or, to be more PC, it is a social construct), but racism is a reality. What is at issue in the case of a racist attack is not the reality or accuracy of categorization, but the fact that the attribution of status is made and that real world consequences flow from those attributions. One of the side-effects of this racist attack is that the groups targeted can buy into the systems of categorization used by their oppressors, and that acceptance of a social construct can have both good and bad results in individual cases. If the "Black is beautiful" movement is in the ascendant, then the social construct can have at least a transient good effect. If the negative values implicit in the social constructs are internalized by the victims of these social constructs, then the effects can be strongly negative. Either way, we need to understand the intricate structure of the dominant social constructs, and for that reason it would be inappropriate and even hurtful to stuff off reports and analyses pertinent to these fabrications. P0M 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - How does this relate to Black people (terminology), or is that article part of the "fallout" as well?

--72.75.105.165 04:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Lacking top-down planning, a series of articles will sometimes grow up. They often will contend for territory, and they often will be attempts to patch-over inconsistencies that naturally arise in the course of bottom-up "planning". P0M 05:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with one of the similar articles about well black people. Anomo 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Alun 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but continue discussion elsewhere - this and related articles are an ongoing problem, and merely deleting this article won't address the underlying problems. There are ongoing efforts at the talk pages to consolidate and diversify the articles on this topic, and it seems some progress is being made. See Talk:Black people for some of the history behind all this. Carcharoth 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per user:Carcharoth. RaveenS 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with similar articles concerning blacks. Bearly541 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• merge; that is, if the various articles can be merged, consideringthe difficulty of neutral POV on this topic.DGG 04:25, 13 December 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.