Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Discrimination. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Discrimination|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Discrimination. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Shortcut

WP:DS/DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination

White Flight in Gary

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

I kicked this to draftspace at Draft:White Flight in Gary, but the author contests. It's loaded with unsupported claims and I just don't think it's ready, so I'm seeking feedback from the community on whether this should continue to exist in mainspace or should be workshopped qua draft. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - It's extremely challenging to suggest it's got so many unsupported claims, and consequently deleted, when it is subject of many articles - both in news media and academic - and is so worthy of an article in its own right. There are around two dozen or so references, and if something isn't supported by those, flag it - but this is not a reason to remove the entire article. Few, if any, statements are unsupported - and the items flagged as unsupported tend to be referred to in previously marked references and so consequently just need to be marked again. Please be bold and improve rather than deleting Berocca Addict (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, what's being proposed here is that the article be incubated and worked on in draftspace rather than in mainspace—not that the article be evaporated. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both deletion and moving to draft space. I've seen a number of articles in main space that have fewer and poorer citations than this one. Could it use more detail? Yes, but it's unlikely to receive help from other editors if it's in draft space. The most obvious cleanup issue is to remove most of the section headings; we don't need a section for every one, two, or three-sentence paragraph. Indyguy (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gary, Indiana. This is an extremely specific thing that isnt particularly notable on its own and could be summed up pretty well in the Gary, Indiana article. Metallurgist (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully challenge the contention that it's not notable. It passes all the relevant notability guidelines, with a series of books, articles, academic papers and documentaries on this distinct topic. I do want to expand on this article as there are a lot of data and information from the sources that I would like to see added to give additional shape, but it needs to survive first. I think merging it to Gary would lead it it dominating that article in a way that would make it less of a typical article on an American City. Berocca Addict (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merge as the topic does seem to be notable enough in its own right. ~ lovkal (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. I disagree with Indyguy's argument above that boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that other articles are of poor quality doesn't make this one more acceptable. I am also suspicious of some wording choices (like a "Legacy" section starting with Gary became emblematic of the intertwined effects of industrial collapse, racial transition, and suburbanization) that, along with the verifiability issues, lead me to believe that the writing might have been at least AI-assisted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify the verifiability issues? Berocca Addict (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The general topic is notable and do feel there is adequate referencing to support being specific to Gary. Unfortunately, as pointed out, there are some problems with the article, such as potential LLM usage, wordage and writing style. It feels/sounds too much like an essay. Drafts do not have to be solo projects, eyeballs and help can be gotten from various workgroups.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I'm sure that one can take care of some of the problematic wording and improve the article as a whole through active Draft improvement. ~ lovkal (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see why Gary is much different than any other city; replace Gary with Detroit, or XYZville and you'd basically have the same article. I'm not seeing notability, there is much synth going on. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a lot of synth; lots of the information (as of my last check) comes from sources which don't mention or contextualize the information white flight. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your criteria for Notability? Berocca Addict (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about Detroit to know if it's exactly the same. In Gary, the law was changed to specifically allow white flight to Merrillville, it also had the Gary Convention and first Black Mayor which were justified at the time for white flight - which makes it different from "urban decay" in other areas that I am aware of. White flight from Gary is subject to several books, papers and documentaries. That being said, I don't know enough about Detroit, maybe it's the same, and if so, probably worth it's own article. Berocca Addict (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much synth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - consensus seems to be emerging to eradicate this. Berocca Addict (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Columbus, Ohio

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

WP:NOPAGE. I believe previous discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change in Baden-Württemberg, where a broad topic is given a hyperlocal framing, are relevant here. This article is essentially a history of racism in the United States - the Great Migration, Jim Crow laws, redlining, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. - as applied to a single city. It would not be feasible to have hundreds of articles about "Racism in X U.S. city" with generic content like this. There is nothing extraordinary about the history of racism in Columbus in particular to justify an article. For example, the article currently says that Columbus is the 55th most racially segregated city in the U.S. out of 112 cities - right in the middle of the list. Some of this content can be selectively merged to Columbus, Ohio and Columbus Division of Police. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Ohio. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and seems a bit coatracky. Metallurgist (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first 4 paragraphs of History section to Columbus, Ohio#History, delete the rest. Much of this article (sadly) applies to just about every major city in the US, making this a bit of a WP:COATRACK for a generic topic. Other parts of the article might be merge-able to Racism in the United States, as a city-specific example. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, as there are plenty of great sources here which are specifically about this large American city. It is fine to have local history in Wikipedia naming particular people, places, and events, even if other cities have comparable circumstances. And other places in Amercica do have similar circumstances, because in Category:History of racism in the United States by state or territory, we have several hundred other articles about location-specific circumstances. The nominators are correct that Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles, but I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of documenting the intersection of cultural heritage and places, especially when we have so many sources. I also recognize WeirdNAnnoyed's complaint that lots of the history is repeated from other places, but in this article, I see either uncited claims which have other Wikipedia backing like links to main articles which do have citations (" safe for African Americans to visit... only four survive: the Macon Hotel, the Hotel St. Clair") or kind of routine, but with a local authority cited like https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2714730 . As a general principle, I would support anyone creating articles for any well documented civil rights movement in any city, regardless of potential repetition, just so long as there were local sources and wiki-notable concepts to report. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
passes WP:GNG I actually don't think it does. This source is specifically about racism and public health. This source is specifically about redlining. This source is 80 years old and is mainly about "Negro life" rather than racial discrimination. And the other sources in the article are even less useful. Where are the sources that discuss "racism in Columbus" as a whole, uniting the different topics discussed in the article? If there are none, this runs into WP:BADTHINGS issues, as other users have said.

Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles Not only are there no other "Racism in X U.S. city" articles, there are not even any "Racism in X U.S. state" articles. As far as I can tell, this is the only subnational article about racism in any U.S. location. And there is probably a reason for that: the creator (who is now inactive here) appears to have been very passionate about creating articles on local Ohio topics. Yes, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, but the argument grows in strength when there are hundreds of cities and 50 states, all of which you argue could have their own "Racism in X" article, and yet none of them exist. We should ask ourselves why that is. Astaire (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astaire: Wikipedia's bar for passing GNG is very low - just two articles on the topic. I se no ambiguity about this article passing GNG. For a topic, we need articles which address that topic, and there is no identify a broad textbook with a unifying vision. As you say, we have articles covering distinct aspects. These include racism in Columbus Ohio for housing discrimination, police, protest events, tourism, and social justice programs. There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative.

While we do not have other racism by American articles, we do have demographic by city articles including LGBTQ culture in Chicago and History of African Americans in Houston. Intersectional topics in Wikipedia are inconsistent because they are low-readership and because we have few editors. Despite this, building out local culture is common in Wikipedia and we have many such articles, even if we do not have complete national sets.

The creator - whose page I watch, and through whose talk page I found this discussion - has been prominent in Wikipedia for their views of thoroughly documenting culture by cities. I think this is a good thing, and wish local historians and interested community members would build out whatever local perspectives they like. Wikipedia does not have a size limit, and we have no need to prune content which passes fact-checking and topical relevance just because a topic is local to the level of a city. Even after all these years, it is also still okay to do new things in Wikipedia. Interest in city history is quite common in every city in the world, even if our Wikipedia editorial ancestors hardly did this. I am in favor of every city in America building out articles like this if anyone organizes content of this quality. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative. Yes, this is exactly my point: there are sources which cover aspects of the subject, but no source that directly addresses the topic of "racism in Columbus" as a whole. So the case for GNG is dubious.

Compare this with your example of LGBTQ culture in Chicago, where the "Further reading" section gives three whole books that are directly about the general subject.

There is a stronger case for reworking this into History of African Americans in Columbus, à la your second example, since this article is already halfway there. And there are indeed sources which address that topic as a whole: e.g. [1], [2] Astaire (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia wants unifying narratives, and this article is deficient for not having one. Despite that, I still feel that GNG is a much lower standard than that.

It could be nice to have an article titled, History of African Americans in Columbus, but if we did, this content would be WP:UNDUE to merge into that for showing a long focused history on only one aspect. We could not just rename this article to be about culture. Also, I do not think we should delete the content of this article just because it is not connected as a subtopic to something higher in the hierarchy. I could establish a brief parent article if that helped the case for this one, but if I did that, the parent article would be a placeholder for a later editor to add more and contain a subsection on racism which pointed to this article. I do not think it is realistic to attract anyone to build a Columbus focused African history article in the next few years though. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sources give unifying narratives over decades, from probably 1800s to 1940s. From the wiki article -

"Frank Uriah Quillin, who wrote in his 1913 book The Color Line in Ohio: A History of Race Prejudice in a Typical Northern State: 'Columbus, the capital of Ohio, has a feeling toward the negroes all its own. In all my travels in the state, I found nothing just like it. It is not so much a rabid feeling of prejudice against the negroes simply because their skin is black as it is a bitter hatred for them.'"^[1]^[2]

References

^ Oliphint, Joel. "Cover: The roots of Columbus' ongoing color divide". Columbus Alive.
^ Himes, J. S. (1942). "Forty Years of Negro Life in Columbus, Ohio". The Journal of Negro History. 27 (2): 133–154. doi:10.2307/2714730. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2714730. S2CID 149546155.

Bluerasberry (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, there is no guarantee 2 sources will be considered enough. I guess it could happen, if they are great on-topic sources with extensive coverage etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing notable about racism in Columbus Ohio. Was racism in Columbus more notable than Birmingham Alabama? Racism occurs everywhere, that doesnt make it particularly notable here. There may be a case for History of African-Americans in Columbus, Ohio, as suggested above, but this aint it. Metallurgist (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. 71.231.11.148 (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This IP appears to be blocked for vandalism and the vote ought to be discarded or removed. Metallurgist (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses can be shared (I wasn't the one who vandalized). 71.231.11.148 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bluerasberry above: "As you say, we have articles covering distinct aspects. These include racism in Columbus Ohio for housing discrimination, police, protest events, tourism, and social justice programs. There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination Proposed deletions

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

[alive-1] Oliphint, Joel. "Cover: The roots of Columbus' ongoing color divide". Columbus Alive.

[2] Himes, J. S. (1942). "Forty Years of Negro Life in Columbus, Ohio". The Journal of Negro History. 27 (2): 133–154. doi:10.2307/2714730. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2714730. S2CID 149546155.

[1]

[2]