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. NW (Talk) 14:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole naming controversies[edit]

Black hole naming controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination per the result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 1. I am neutral. Courcelles 05:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As idiotic as these cases are, they have drawn a ridiculous amount of media attention. This makes at least the 2008 Dallas incident marginally notable, despite of WP:NOTNEWS.TimothyRias (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial and pointless article and WP:SYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Whether it's "pointless" or not is very subjective. An argument could be made that Snooki and the Bed Intruder Song are pointless, for example, but that doesn't mean we should delete them. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has received enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep topic, although trivial and a bit silly, has gotten some coverage. It would be out of place to merge to Black hole, which is about the scientific facts. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice against recreation. The article as-written seems to have been part of a trolling campaign, as the name in English isn't significantly controversial. I'm told that genuine controversy existed in French-speaking and Russian-speaking communities, due to similarities with pre-existing slang terms, so any encyclopedic article on the subject would likely focus on those. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a case for editing, not deletion. Also, your "trolling" statement is an AGF violation. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only 1 person is listed as having thought along the lines of "black hole" being used in a racist manner. The rest of the Article is not about the words "black hole" but rather a bad pronunciation/mis-hearing of the term, or a rehash of past events. It may have Citations, but its not notable as a controversy. If it was a notable controversy, more than 1 person would be talking about it, and it would still be an issue/topic of discussion. The uproar may assist in making Him notable, but the uproar caused was not itself a notable controversy. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (Weak) Delete - Is there some term for a word that picks up un-wanted connotations?? If so, merge there. Otherwise, I think it's silly to claim there is a "controversy" about the use of the term based on 2 (rather trivial) incidents. The whole premise of the article is based on these isolated incidents, and seems to almost border on original research Danski14^(talk) 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not original research; it's well-sourced. If you feel there should be more sources, by all means add them. Again, a case for editing, not deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep Ok, I've decided to change my vote, based on the fact there is some media coverage on this. I'm skeptical about notability, but since it is well referenced, I'll argue for a keep. However, I'd like to see the article changed somewhat. In particular, the phrase "some critics have argued that the term itself is racially offensive" which appears in the lead should be documented or removed. (Who is actually making such a claim?) As mentioned above, we are only told of one person (John Wiley Price) who made such a claim, but is there anyone else actually arguing the term is inherently racially offensive? That is why I said it appears to be original research, because it seems to be arguing for that POV. Note also I changed the wording slightly in the lead, from "the term itself is not without controversy." to "the usage of the term is not without controversy". I think that is a much more level-headed way of putting it. It should not be construed that the term is inherently racially controversial, (indeed, at least one individual argues it is, but this is of debate as shown in [1]).. What has proven controversial, though, is the way it is used.(in particular, outside of physics) Danski14^(talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: on further reflection, if this article is kept it may be worth considering moving it to "Black hole usage controversies". Danski14^(talk) 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because something has Citations does not make it WP:Notable. I would go so far as to say "There is no controversy!" The sources do not address the subject directly in detail, they are only reporting 1 mans view. A controversy does not exist until Others are talking about it. How can there be a Controversy if nobody is talking about it? "on the fact there is some media coverage on this" is a loooong way from "...significant independent coverage or recognition..." (from WP:NRVE). The concept that this is a racial slur is a flash-in-the-pan bit of news. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it ( a flash-in-the-pan bit of news)? A simple google search on black hole and racism gives several pages of hits referring to the 2008 Dallas incident published at various dates spread through the period 2008 till now. In particular the blog and news posts around the Hallmark incident tend to refer back to this incident. This is sufficient to make the 2008 Dallas incident notable. (Not very, but it just hops the bar for WP:N.) TimothyRias (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First lets get a proper search. "black hole" racism -Hallmark -blog -Behar (Yeah Behar from The View thinks "Black Friday" is racist and your search pulls them in also. hmmm...Black Friday naming controversies, ummm no, that is just another non-notable view of another singular person.) Now from whats left lets look for one that talks Directly about the subject, not just rehash reporting what 1 mans view was in 2008, or mocking the entire train of thought. I cannot find any. If there is no "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention" (WP:N), how can there be a Notable Controversy? I removed Hallmark from the search because a bad audio recording by a greeting card company that is always referenced by "That's how they hear it..." has nothing to do with the term Black Hole being considered racist. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (at least for the 2008 Dallas incident) IS established by the fact that the reports of the Hallmark incident refer back to the 2008 Dallas incident. This means that the media still remember the incident two years after the fact, and find it notable enough the bring up. This bumps this incident over the WP bar for notability, which is not that high to begin with. (You might also want to read up on WP:CIVIL.) TimothyRias (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reports of the Hallmark incident do not refer back to the 2008 Dallas incident, they make no mention of anything but the Hallmark/NAACP disagreement, leastaways not the ones on this Article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename, or merge per TimothyRias. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - press coverage establishes notability. We do not require that more than one person must have a belief before it is notable - we only require that it is covered in independent reliable sources. This article passes that test. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Just having press coverage does not, in and of itself, establish notability. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: most of the examples presented are unsourced and thus per policy should be deleted, the remainder appear to be disconnected incidents which do not indicate naming controversies. Furthermore the article title as is suggests that the designation of individual examples of black holes are controversial, rather than the term "black hole" itself. Icalanise (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a case for editing and renaming, not deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a fixed article would look nothing like this article and be called something else, what exactly is the point in not deleting the present article? The whole purpose of "delete without prejudice" is to avoid having a bad version of an article around while people think about making a good version. If a policy-compliant article is ready now, rather than some time in the distant future, then create it in user-space and discuss replacement of the bad version with it on the article's talk page. The possibility of a future, good version of the article existing, is not a valid argument for keeping a non-good version. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A fixed article wouldn't "look nothing like" this article. Large parts of the article as it currently stands are sourced, and there is nothing wrong with them, nor is there any reason why they should be deleted. As far as the unsourced bits go, all one would have to do is add sources (and we're just waiting for a French or Russian speaker to come along and find some for us); a fairly minor edit to be sure. No sweeping changes are necessary, nor is a total rewrite; just a few tweaks. So again, not a reason for deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Icalanise and Exit2Dos. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a poorly assembled article on two different subjects: One, "black hole" as seen by a few people in a few cases to be racially offensive. The other, the origin of the name, and equivalents in other languages. The second part obviously belongs in Black hole. The first part could conceivably make an article if it were properly done, and if some more examples could be found, and if--perhaps--its even discussed somewhere. There have been similar but better known examples: the misperception of the word "denigrate" comes to mind. I regret that the author did not take advantage of the comments at the Deletion Review to fix up the article. I'll be glad to userify is someone wants to work up the topic--and certainly under a more sensible title. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Dallas county incident [2], as it is described, is a trivial incident picked up by some news media outlets. I had a difficlut time finding this outside of blogs, and in the actual news media. This incident does not serve to illustrate that there is a signifigant or notable controversy surrounding the scientific phrase "black holes". There was one article which refered to a single anti-semite remark, and in the context of notability, this is certainly trivial - especially given the very sparse news coverage of this remark [3]. Overall these remarks are not even discussed anywhere - there are no follow up stories, with commentary from noteworthy persons, that I could find. Hence there is no controversy. The same appears to be true with the hallmark card. There was the critique from the LA NAACP and nothing noteworthy after that. I see this as WP:NOTNEWS and boderline WP:SYN. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree that it has received enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.