Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Americans in Davenport, Iowa

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. The arguments over the necessity to produce reliable sources to prevent original research were convincing. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Most of this page has nothing to do with African Americans in Davenport. 9,000 non-notable citizens does not warrant a page. Most of it is unsourced except the notable natives (which can be found on the Davenport, Iowa and Quad Cities pages already) and the "Local African American Firsts" page which is not notable at all. The rest is unsourced speculation about where African Americans hang out and go to church, along with unsourced school information. CTJF83Talk 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it I support keeping this article, but having someone re-write and Wikifiy it. The African American community in Davenport is notable by itself; as are all communities. If you start deleting communities because they have non-notable population, that would probably remove a third of all Wikipedia pages and 75 percent of all Iowa pages. A Black community of any sort in Iowa I think is very notable. Yes, this article is sloppy and clearly the work of someone's first attempt at a page, they seem bewildered by the whole process and need support. This is a big topic, and probably not a good one for a new editor to take on, but they are merely following the Wikipedia rule: Be Bold. We should also remember the precepts: Please do not Bite the Newcomers and Assume Good Faith. Peace, Billwhittaker (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable synthesis. It does not seem reasonable that we should have this article, nor any others of the form Members of $race in $city, barring perhaps the largest cities — unless a reliable source has written about that particular intersection of race and city, we should not be covering it. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No problem with the topic itself, but I agree with Stifle's conclusions: really just some few referenced facts cobbled together with speculation and original research. To be sure, minority populations are notable in certain ways, but again they have to be studied and deemed significant by reliable sources, which we don't have here. No prejudice to the creator, but this topic doesn't deserve an article unless reliable sources are produced in the future. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and an essay. Themfromspace (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The notability of the subject is clearly established in the article: "Of that number, 9.2 percent - or 9,200 citizens are African American. For comparison, the average African American population in Iowa cities is 2.5 percent." Article needs improvement and any OR sections should be deleted. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Statistics do not enable a subject to meet the notability guidelines, look over WP:N to see what does. Themfromspace (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No need for that, I can read the references available in the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it As the original "overmatched" author, I am curious why the largest African American community in Iowa isn't worth an entry. And, since the article is evolving on a weekly basis, I believe it will achieve Wiki excellence in no time. I've been adding links and sources and will continue to do so. But, consider the subject matter -- these black churches, gathering spots and the school strategies families were subjected to have historically been ignored or swept under the rug. Shall we do so again? I want to put in the fact that in the 1960s African Americans were charged a $500 fee if they chose to live outside of certain neighborhoods -- which was a big factor in how these Iowa ghettoes were created. Since no one will go on record, I have to source that offline and figure out where I can cite it online. And, since I was a witness to the children from Mississippi being held back, I know for a fact it happened, but once again, I must find a reliable source. I will do so, but investigations take time. For the person who said it's not about African Americans, I am flabbergasted. I don't know how to answer that charge since it is patently incorrect. This is not a history I am re-writing here; this is a history that happened. You may not approve, but if Wiki claims to be an encylopedia of human experience, then I don't know how you can consider this an unworthy experience. Since gay people are a smaller population than black people -- they constitute 10% or less of the population -- should we exclude their histories, too? Stonewall, after all, was just a few people in New York. My intent is to collaboratively create a page much like African Americans in Omaha, which is very well done, and to inspire others to chronicle the African American histories of their own cities and towns. These histories don't fold neatly into existing Wiki city articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.217.172 (talk • contribs)
• Suggested Compromise I think that there is enough disagreement about deletion that we should give this article time to develop. Personally, I want to see it work. How about tagging it with Template:Underconstruction, Template:Refimprove, Template:Cleanup instead of deletion? Perhaps post to Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora and Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa that this article needs some attention. I also hope that the main contributors sign up for usernames, since that will make communication a lot easier, use the Log In button at the top to start. I can really see the core of a solid article here. Billwhittaker (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The histories of gays in general is different then black history for Davenport. There is no page about gays in San Francisco, which has 15.5% gays and has 256,313 gays, far more than Davenport's 9,000 black residents. If we include this, why not include large gay populations, or Hispanic populations, etc. Where do you stop the inclusions for these type of articles? Also, Des Moines has over 15,000 blacks, so Davenport doesn't have the largest black community in Iowa. I also said the a lot of the article doesn't have to do with Davenport blacks, as apposed to blacks in other parts of the country. CTJF83Talk 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Compromise I am fine with a clean-up tag. That appears to be a reasonable compromise to me. In answer to your question, I think it's not in the best interest of Wiki to ponder where does this type of inclusion end. I think it's better served by pushing to the edge of whatever human knowledge can be gathered. In this article, there was much more specific information about Davenport's African Americans, but it was deleted. So, I have learned to adhere more closely to Wiki style. Regarding your comment re: gay communities, if a city has a gay community, why keep it on the periphery? Wiki it. I agree, though, that gay history and black history are very different. Cities such as San Francisco, Chicago, New York etc definitely have "gay communities." No question. But, I would argue against that being the case for small towns, which may have social networks but not full-blown communities as I understand the term. But, black communities have existed in such settings because it was a matter of survival and Davenport, Iowa required as much of a survival mindset as other, larger cities. Our churches, our pastors, our meeting places, where we went to school, where we ate, our outcasts, our (usually unofficial) leaders are part of our makeup. Those of us who lived it know what it was like. Those who never lived it -- our sons and daughters -- need to know this history. This article celebrates that fact.

Delete Non-notable community. If this is a notable community, then I defy you to find me a community that isn't notable. SkipSmith (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep It I'll take Skip up on his challenge. He offers a specious argument. It's like trying to prove a negative. The community is notable because it is a community with a history of struggle that is unique. It's notable because it's a community that has generated a Super Bowl champion, an actress, an author and likely many more nationally known figures. It's notable because this is precisely the type of history traditional encyclopedia's overlooked for no good reason, which is part of the rationale for creating Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.217.172 (talk • contribs)

Comment - You offered to take me up on my challenge, but you still haven't named a community that is non-notable by your standard... SkipSmith (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of your feel-good PC buzzwords, now do you have any reliable sources to back that up? The individual people deserve to be mentioned, but in this way it is original research. They should be mentioned in their own article if they are notable, or as part of a larger article about a subject that has reliable sources. It's a lot easier to link a Super Bowl champion with his team than with the collection of African Americans in Davenport. I believe anything having to do with this subject will fall within the grounds of WP:OR, but I'm welcome to see a draft article if you could write one up. Themfromspace (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, if anything African-Americans in Iowa with reliable and scholarly sources are a more encyclopedic topic, we just can't have articles on every ethnic group of every small town without strong sources. Secret ^account 14:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

CommentI am quite the PC type, you're right. I don't know which words are the buzzwords, but I'll take you at your word. I don't see being PC (sensitive to other cultures) as a negative. I would argue that a player belongs to his hometown before his team, but as opposed to going down that road, explain what you would like to see in a draft article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.2.47 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Although this is a different IP than the one who !voted to keep up above, he's responding to me as if I had addressed him before. I advise the admin to make discretion when considering these two 75.x !votes. Themfromspace (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am obviously the same person and I wasn't trying to hide that fact. So, to avoid confusion, I changed my tag above to "comment" which I was unaware of as an option. But, I still would like to read your thoughts re: a draft article. This seems like a no-brainer issue to me if we're talking a comprehensive encyclopedia. The article merits inclusion and expansion. If there were an African American museum in Davenport, would there be a push to delete an entry about it because there were only 9,000 people alive in the town at any one time? Shouldn't that 9,000 number then be the dividing line for all entries? Be it Army battallions, private colleges, political movements; if it's quantified, it's quantified -- 9,000 and no fewer. That seems arbitrary to me. And, as far as notable, I believe it's extremely noteworthy to have thriving black communities in Iowa -- a state most view as white. Already the history of Brixton, IA, the first black town in the state is fading away. That was a thousand or fewer people, but a book has been written about it. There is no presence on Wiki. I can only assume, based on the observations of those wishing to delete the article in question, that such histories are not worthy of Wiki entries? If that is the case, I have a serious problem with Wikipedia and its contributors who are so inclined.

Wikipedia already has a dividing line for article topics, which is the notability guidelines. This article lacks the reliable sources required by the notability guidelines. The sources need to be about the article topic, which is African Americans in Davenport. If you find sources about individual African Americans in Davenport, they can't be used for this article since it would be a synthesis of research, which would violate our no original research policy. I'm sorry, I know there's lots of policies and guidelines that might not make sense to people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but that's how this encyclopedia is built. Themfromspace (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest this leans toward, at worst, an under construction tag and certainly not deletion. From the Wiki article on Notability: "Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

"If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

"Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[7] for advice on where to look for sources..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.217.172 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are commen strawmen arguments used here to justify the inclusion of articles that do not meet the notability guidelines. A common practice that can be done when an article doesn't appear to meet the noability guidelines, but sources are claimed to exists and not yet shown, is to userfy the article, which means moving them into the user's personal page. I don't think this can be done with IP editors, though. When an article is in a userspace, the user is free to work on the article until it meets the guidelines, upon which the article is reentered after a decision at DRV (which should be successful if the article meets the guidelines). Themfromspace (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, removing unreferenced material. As to Nom: "9,000 non-notable citizens does not warrant a page." What number does? The answer is, there is no number, as this is not a part of the notability guideline. "Because similar articles don't exist" also does not speak to notability. There are lots of notable things without Wikipedia articles. The question, is the _topic_ (not the existing article) something which _can_ be referenced and would meet the general notability guideline. As the existing references establish the demographic presence of a community at this location, this is a notable community. Period. The removal of unreferenced material does not require an afd. It requires editing: let's begin editing this into something which contains only verifiable material. T L Miles (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:NOTPAPER. No major claims to notability, but enough minor ones.. 9000 member community, unique for Iowa and the greater surrounding area, Dred Scott, part of greater history of blacks migration to the Midwest. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • But there still aren't any reliable sources found that could back up this article. Themfromspace (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: Right now or eternally? Wikipedia has no deadline --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well there now are reliable third party sources. Elements not referenced should be removed, others improved. Town was specifically a place of refuge for African Americans before and during the Civil War. There are at leset four recent articles in the Quad City paper on the history of the African American community here. They are referenced in the article now. T L Miles (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The sources have to be about the subject. Yes, the facts have to be properly sourced, but the topic of the article has to be demonstrated to be notable which is done by providing sources about the topic itself. Just using sourced facts to draw an unsourced conclusion is original research. Themfromspace (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The unsourced conclusion is that there is an African American Community in Davenport Iowa? The sources are about the subject. What is unclear? That there are African Americans in this city? that their history in Davenport is notable? that their numbers in Davenport are notable? That Communities of cities are not notable? What about African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska? That's a Good Article currently. How about Mexicans in Omaha, Nebraska? The subject is "African Americans in Davenport, Iowa". One of the articles is entitled "Much of Davenport’s black history lost to the wrecking ball". Would it satisfy your concerns if the article were moved to a different name? Perhaps "Black history of Davenport, Iowa"? That would therefore be identical to the title of one third party reliable source.T L Miles (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, Black history of Davenport, Iowa would be a much better topic, which could retain some of the same information. But the topics are fundamentally different. I'd support this article with a rename and a focus on historical background instead of current demographics. Themfromspace (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle and Nyttend. Some facts glued together with OR synthesis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 25 February 2009 (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.