Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White House hospitality toward African Americans (2nd 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 delete. Anthonyhcole, if you want to keep working on this, let me (or any other admin) know; I'll be happy to restore this to draft space where it can be improved without any time pressure. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White House hospitality toward African Americans

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

This article covers two slightly-related incidents, both of which have their own articles. The concept is far too broad to be of encyclopedic significance: how many times have the Obamas shown hospitality to African Americans? This was previously nominated shortly after creation, but was withdrawn when the article creator indicated his intent to expand the article. I checked with him recently, and he said he would not oppose deletion. St Anselm (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of the book The Black History of the White House, used as a reference, suggests the topic is notable for earlier American history. Numerous other presidents are mentioned but not covered in detail, but the article is surely capable of expansion. What policies is the article said to breach exactly? Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article appears to be a summary of two other articles so I cant see what value creating a wrapper around already existing material gives. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per MilborneOne. However, if the article is restructured shortly and gets expanded, we can discuss keeping the article. In its current form it is not worth keeping as a summary. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically about two incidents, both of which have their own articles. Not seeing any value here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat "What policies is the article said to breach exactly?" Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say notability - while the individual incidents may be notable, the topic as a whole does not seem to be. St Anselm (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, as I pointed out before, there is a book on it. Try again, please. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not a book on it. The Black History of the White House does not even have a chapter on the subject. Please look more carefully. St Anselm (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be silly. The subject is treated chronologically, and the few early examples appear within this framework. You still haven't come up with a relevant policy. It clearly isn't notability, as you are not claiming the articles on the two episodes treated here so far are not notable. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, MilborneOne, and Necrothesp. Redundant to have an article that is little more than a summary of two existing articles.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started this with the intention of turning it into a full treatment of the topic, beginning by merging two smaller articles I'd written ... Then never got back to it. It's a worthy topic and there are several good books, articles and chapters about it, so I don't think it should be deleted on notability grounds. Perhaps one day I'll turn my mind to it again - or someone else will - and add more of the dozens of other noteworthy cases. Both of the little articles this one is presently made from could and should be expanded considerably, and if this article is ever completed, its coverage of those two incidents will need to be reduced, per WP:SUMMARY STYLE, with links to their dedicated articles. So, I guess, eventually, when these three articles are all complete, the point of having three articles will be more apparent to the casual observer. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 9 December 2015 (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.