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: Looking at this debate, it's clear the decision of whether or not to include this topic is a controversial one.

Looking at the current state of the article, it quite clearly violates our policy regarding synthesis of published material. The references have been chosen based on their use of the phrase "black president," there is an entire section about rumors of black ancestry (all of which would be better off in the individuals' articles), a section on the phrase itself (which belongs on Wiktionary), and a "in popular culture" section.

There is little redeeming about the current state of the article. That, combined with the debate leaning somewhat toward a 'delete' decision moves me to close as delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black president (United States)

[edit]
Black president (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Pointless POV fork, original research. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

author does not get a link, article does. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Lower case delete I don't this article is quite the abomination that the two above me seem to, but in its current state it's not much of a contribution to Wikipedia. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 21:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC) It's much better now. I'm still not positive it's an article we need, so I'm neutral. I would suggest that most of these !votes need to be discounted, since the article is drastically different now. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's "whole" in my name. in case you- k, later. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been improved drastically from what I originally voted delete on. I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook
a first black president would be/has been a big-deal moment in other countries besides the US. I didn't have time to put in the whole international angle that relates to the idea of black president. I figured someone could add it if it wasn't deleted right away. when I create an article, I imagine it living for a while and people improving it if it's got flaws- flaws that aren't fundamental. thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I think there's potentially something here. The notion of "Will there be a black President in my lifetime?" was something certainly existent in popular thinking before Obama's rise to prominence, just as "Will there be a female/atheist/gay/insertminorityhere President in my lifetime?" still is. Not sure, though, and not too willing to stick my neck out for it :P Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 23:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not relevant to this discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. It's what the article's first sentence refers to. But like I said, I'm not sure in any case that that's fodder for a suitable article. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 23:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about one particularly bad article. It's not relevant that a good article could be written on the same topic. PhGustaf (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How....in the world is it not? If the content of President of the United States was nothing but a mishmash of meaningless letters, like kjlfdwgfewqotf8wu4eg[0ojgeq[0wehryh0jgwh0e00qg9j0j9 or something, it would be incorrect to write a suitable article about that (say, the one we currently have), and the only correct course of action would be to delete it? Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that most of the article should hit the shredder, but am hesitant to endorse deletion of a good-faith submission when maybe 2-3 lines could be saved in a merge. (possibly into a lede about the significance of "firsts" of a particular group, like in List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender firsts, addressing the cultural implications) The apparent intent of the article creator was the cultural significance of a first black president of the US, which the Obama articles will already cover in a better context than this could. The only other alternative I can think of would be to convert it into a List of African American first officeholders of the United States (mayors, congress members (during Reconstruction and since), governors, etc. (a similar article also exists for lesbian/gay persons - this way the article wouldn't only be about Barack Obama), but the List of African American firsts already serves that purpose. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: (EC) NoSleep, that's not really a valid analogy, as one is an inherently notable position and the other is just a vague description. In any case, this AfD is about the article that is written. Since it seems to have been written just to link to the Obama article, the question for me was if the article is good enough to provide a link in one of our highest-traffic articles. That's why I voted to delete above. If someone wanted to create an actual article on this subject with proper sources later, that article can be judged on its own merit. As for good faith, it seems as if this editor has created several articles that were speedily deleted. Dayewalker (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. When I said "suitable article," I didn't simply mean a well-written article, I meant one suitable, in all respects, for inclusion in Wikipedia. It seems that wasn't clear to Gustaf. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is so true. There should not be a stand alone article for something that has already been covered.manadude2 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, where has it been covered in other articles? cuz, that's basically what I'm looking for if it can't stay alive as it's own article. I think it's a legit topic. maybe a stand-alone article won't do for now- so where deos wikipedia cover this ground? thanks. in good faith, Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only wrote the US angle. sure, the international aspect of the idea of black president should be included. it's a wiki! it's not a final draft! no one wants to step up to fix it? would it really matter if I put the stub tag back? Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
last thing regarding deletion criteria- the link from the obama article's LEDE is already removed. so let's not freak about that. it's not a deal breaker for me. I'm sure people will keep that page under control no matter what. I want backlinks to this page, of course, but the community decides what they will be.
you guys really hate when edit sums lack decorum. hehe. mental note.
to the rest of you that put some meat into the expression of your concerns, thanks. keep it gangster. I appreciate feedback into my discourse style from many of you. soldier on. keep the wiki strong. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll catch you all later when this shit doesn't even seem historic any more. and wolf blitzer and jon king and chuck todd are like "wow, member how historic that shit was? And member how we didn't let that historicity slip by without mentioning it a few times?"

P.P.S. historicity is a word. and it has an article. k, later. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The term "black president" has long had a notable presence. The term has been used in movies, music and politics. It has a meaning beyond a dictionary definition and has cultural significance. I didn't look to see what was here in the past as far as this article is concerned, but it just needs some work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manohla Dargis and A. O. Scott, "How the Movies Made a President", New York Times, January 16, 2009. I don't find the complaints of "US-centric" to be convincing at all, now that the essay has been renamed. Some of the commenters are calling this a "fork" (by the way, I assume they are referring to WP:CFORK not WP:FORK) but it is not clear to me, at least, what it belongs at--certainly not a list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the focus were changed to the idea of and representations of the first black US president it could fly, but as it is now - an amalgamation of fictional references (which I think is the best part) and extremely dubious "scholarship" (which can't remain) - I can't support it. Another rewrite might convince me otherwise, along these lines, but not as it is now. Tvoz/talk 19:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if we were doing this in 1960 or 1980, we ight well be talking about "First Catholic President" or "First Divorced President". They were big issues in their times. PhGustaf (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buzz leads to notability. Maybe you misunderstood me--I'm saying that IMO Obama, the black president now, is a bigger deal than Kennedy, the Catholic president, then. Still, in a way the article isn't about Obama, but about an American cultural hang-up, a very notable one. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind Drmies, he's European. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coatracks have hidden agendas and hidden bias, what is the secret agenda of this article? I am sure an article about "Woman president" could also be written. There already is Women in medicine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not an essay. It's far less coherent than an essay. The version I am looking at now should be deleted because it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What do we have here? We have references to the first black American president, references to comedic parodies and fictional presidents, references to spurious claims that other presidents before Obama were perhaps partly black, music performances about black presidents, discussions of other men (i.e. WJC) who were "designated" as the black president, and the completely OR statement that is supposed to tie all this together, "Given the nation's history of slavery, segregation, racism and discrimination, the idea has had a potent resonance." Please, people, I'm as excited as anyone about the history that's going to be made in nine hours, but this is just an unbelievable collection of disparate information that all fits, appropriately, in other articles. The only thing that maybe should tie these together is (perhaps) a new category. But not this psuedo-article. Unschool 08:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept of "black president" is not indiscriminate at all, the article shows the evolution of the concept in fiction and in political history. I have deleted the unreferenced essay portion, and added or formatted the references. The concept was in place long before Obama. It is now an historical overview, but may still need some cleaning up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no doubt that a short, focused article could be written on the subject of African American presidents of the United States in fiction but this is an unfocused essay plus a random collection of trivia ("In the post apocalyptic world of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, Tina Turner is a head of state.") much of it irrelevant, unreferenced, or both. - Dravecky (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1] I was married to a Black woman for over a decade, and had a daughter with her. But it was always there - there was always a part of her that was reserved, as if I or my friends might suddenly withdraw our acceptance of her at any second. There was a shield that when around me was always up, that only came down when we were safely in her family's homes. And, to be honest, whenever we were out in public there were always the subtle slights, the implications by both men and women that she was not good enough to be a first-class citizen. This inauguration radically changes all of that - permanently. For her and my daughter this is as of noon today a very different world. Simesa (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree that the "first" is the subject - how many of the fictional depictions specified that they were dealing with the "first"? The job is "President of the United States" - why not just this unambiguous name (and yes it should be capitalized)? Personally I prefer "black", since that seems to me the term most often used in most contexts, but "African American" is fine. So Black President of the United States, or African American President of the United States. But this should be a different discussion on the talk page I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree - it's the First, the Watershed Moment, that's the real justification for this article. History just changed, and Obama's being the first such African-American President is the reason it changed. Simesa (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alleged black ancestry of American presidents before Obama
  • History of black presidency in the arts and music
  • Black presidential candidates (in fact, if that article doesn't exist, I'm shocked.)

But this "article" is not an article at all, nor is it even an essay. It is just a collection of trivia that is only tangentially connected. As WP:INDISCRIMINATE says,

merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia

I point this out because several of the writers above are changing to "keep" votes because now the article is so well-sourced. Well, that's not all there is to it. This article lacks any definable subject. I could write an article on Water in literature and science, and include examples of people discussing water in poems and songs and how water was a big part of certain novels and then throw in the unique way that water expands when it freezes and how that makes life on earth possible and then how water is made up of two elements and on and on. And I'd be able to provide citations for it all. And who would deny that water is sufficiently notable for all that to be included in an article? Yet look at water. Sure, it touches upon the intangible a bit. But the subject of the article is quite clearly the physical substance known as water, with only 5% or 6% of the article dealing with anything else. But here--what is the main theme of the article? Please don't say "Black President" until you can make that the subject of a sentence that encapsulates the essence of this article. And no one has been able to do this yet, because it's not possible, until the article settles on whether it's about the fictional history of the concept, or the candidates that have actually run, or about the use of the concept as inspiration for music or other art forms. This article, if it is allowed to stand, without additional definition, will become a monstrosity, even if it is fully cited, because citations do not address the problem. Look at this article. It is highly sourced, with over 80 citations. And unlike Black president, it has a defined theme. Yet it is still a poor excuse for an article, because any one can put in anything they want with a citation. The article currently under consideration will fare far worse, months down the road, if it is not narrowed down. As it currently stands, this article has a very bleak and embarrassing future. I still favor deletion, but splitting it into multiple articles would be a more acceptable solution than keeping it. Unschool 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since much of the information for the articles you suggest is contained in this article with sources, it makes perfect sense to keep it and then consider your recommendations for splitting it up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (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.
Category