Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black superheroes

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 12:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of black superheroes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another “list of superheroes by arbitrary trait” article with lots of zero-context or non-notable entries. The topic is surely notable but no information on why black superheroes are important and how they were and are depicted is provided, and cannot be provided in this format. Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Ethnic groups, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tough one. The article in its current format is clearly problematic. It reads like a database and the sourcing is patchy to say the least. However, the underlying topic is highly notable ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and dozens more), meeting the criteria at WP:NLIST. There is some raw material of value here, so rather than delete it, I would like to see it transformed into a less indiscriminate list, possibly as a spinout of a main list within Portrayal of black people in comics.
Keep I think the basic concept behind it is notable, even if the list needs heavy cleanup. However, as it often goes, WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not a valid argument to AfD a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article could use a lot of work in sprucing it up, but there are a lot of reliable sources available to justify this list's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate. Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough blue links to their own articles to show they are notable entries. Any on the list not notable, as proven by having their own Wikipedia article or a reference showing news coverage about them, should be removed. Dream Focus 07:28, 22 June 2023 (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.