Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American Ghettos

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 of the debate was - substantially rewritten

List of American Ghettos

A non-NPOV and non-encyclopedic list made by an anon. Delete. Darkcore 06:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Surely we must have more ghettos than this. Gamaliel 06:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You'd have to have a real definition for a ghetto if you really wanted to have this considered NPOV. Solid, backed by statistics, etc...but since we don't, I'll say delete. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|P M C]] 07:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very weak delete, if updated with some stats about average household incomes and such, it could be a good list. —siro χ o 07:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. jni 08:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Agree that a real definition of "ghetto" would need to be in place, and I doubt that the Warsaw Ghetto and Watts have much in common. Geogre 14:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Well, ghetto and inner city do merit articles, and even gay ghetto exists as a redirect to gay village, which is in large part a list. There's also a somewhat parallel category List of named ethnic enclaves in North American cities. However, the list presently under discussion is too dubious to responsibly merge without considerable verification/research. Manhattan, New York is a ghetto!? Samaritan 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, they did mean the Harlem section of Manhattan, but the area up at 125th is not a ghetto anymore, man. If you pay $1,800 a month for a one-bedroom apartment, you're not in a ghetto. (And Kingsbridge is a ghetto? And Bankhead is a ghetto in Atlanta (try Techwood Homes).) These inaccuracies just emphasize how much the list lives and dies by POV. Geogre 01:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Oakland is a ghetto? Come as a big shock to the people of the Rockridge, Lake Merritt, Glen Park, and Fruitvale neighborhoods, not to mention the folks at Kaiser-Permanente (headquartered there). POV axe-grinding, clearly. --Calton 01:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Inherantly POV. I could argue half the listings there. --jpgordon{gab} 17:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There's no "standard" definition of ghetto, so it's going to be POV right from the start. I currently live in a neighborhood that if you take the income level and "racial mix" (it's a student neighborhood) might be considered a ghetto by this guy's standards, but I don't think would be thought as one by anyone else. Inky 20:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, ~~Delete~~. Without any kind of definition of what a "ghetto" is, this page is ghastly. If it improves greatly I'll consider a vote change. Antandrus 06:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Page is looking better: abstain for now. May change vote to keep later. 19:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is racist garbage. "Ghetto" belongs in discussions of the Holocaust, not in POV nonsense about black-majority cities in the US. Delete. --Sesel 21:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete extremely as-is. Garbage indeed. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- - Important - I changed the entry a significant deal. I didnt have a chance to fully research the income distributions of the neighborhoods on the list, but i made an effort to document the importance of a page such as this. It may be a fatally flawed page, but i tried to give it a go. It obviously still needs income-based justification, because as others have mentioned, the list seems pretty capricious. Like i said, i dont know if what i did merits this page´s continued existance, but i think i at least pushed it in the right direction and hopefully that will give others an impetus to add further material. --Handel 06:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia represents POV subjects all the time, we just try to represent them in a NPOV way. This is definitely a topic that should be represented, and the rewritten article is starting to make some good progress. - Lifefeed 15:06, Nov 28, 2004 (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.