The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. This might better be stated as no consensus to delete. Personally I found the fact that there is no Black English people article troubling for the arguments here. But consensus is what it is. I will also add that this is one of three subcategories at this level of the tree. So if we were to delete this, probably all three need to be part of a single discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this page really needed? Is there a page for white English sportspeople? Surely this is a non-issue now. MrMarmite (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close No policy-based rationale for deletion has been given by the nominator. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only is the category ambiguous, Jessica Ennis is a good example, why is there a category for black sports people and not one for asian, white, muslim etc? The notion of have a list of black athletes in the wonderful melting pot of 2014 seems an anachronism and patronising. MrMarmite (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try to understand my point before your Daily Mail insults, as for your foam comments, please, give it rest. Your implication of a racist angle to my point couldn't be more wrong, and rather insulting and deliciously ironic. My point about Jessica Ennis is that she is multi-ethnic not "black" or "white" MrMarmite (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about being racist? Oh, you did. Move along, son. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 13:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is never any need or value in categorizing people by their membership in a majority grouping (e.g. "white English sportspeople", "black Jamaican people", etc.) — because in addition to being effectively unmaintainable due to the sheer scope and size of the category, membership in that grouping is already automatically presumed in the absence of a properly sourced assertion to the contrary anyway. There is, however, value in categories for people who are members of an identifiable and notable minority community. And unfortunate though it may be, race is not yet a non-issue, any more than gender or sexual orientation are — in the ideal world that we all wish we lived in, sure, but in the real world that we actually live in such distinctions do still matter for better or for worse. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep unless you're willing to take on the whole Black English tree, and make a case why this is no longer defining. Or, make an argument why Black English X is ok, but Black English Sportspeople is not - we don't always intersect ethnicity with job, so make the case. Otherwise I'm leaning keep.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: my prefernece might be to merge this to a Black British category, but it is well populated and should thus be left alone. If there is a change it should be an upmerge or merge to Category:Black British sportspeople. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this page really is needed, because the real world categorizes and defines people as Black English sportspeople. The bad arguments being offered for deletion -- what about some other category (white English sportspeople in this case)? and the dreaded ambiguous case (Jessica Ennis) -- are just as invalid here as everywhere else. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CATEGRS; nowhere does anyone posit how Black English play sports differently than their non-Black peers.. . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The speed with which its defenders call its opposers bigots shows that they have no real defence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... and the speed with which editors who are regular participants at CfD offer excuses for deletion that don't even make an attempt to reference policy shows that the deleters have no legitimate argument whatsoever. The nominator's strongest argument for deletion was "Is this page really needed?" and remarkably you've offered an argument with even less relevance to Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
