Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black fashion models

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of black fashion models

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

Arbitrary list based on subjective racial designation. No comparable wikipedia list exists (e.g. no List of white fashion models). There are instead various ethnicity based lists like List of Pakistani models and List of South Korean models. The related Category:List of Black Fashion Models was also recently deleted for similar reasons (c.f. [1]). In keeping with Wikipedia:EGRS#Ethnicity_and_race, which indicates that "ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not", MOS:IDENTITY instructs to "use specific terminology[...] For example, often it is more appropriate for people from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African." Similarly, WP:ETHNICGROUP, which contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about peoples, ethnicities and tribes, states that: "How the group self-identifies should be considered[...] If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Given the foregoing, recommend deleting the list and moving its entries to new individual autonym/ethnicity based lists, such as List of African American fashion models, List of Nigerian fashion models, etc.. Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If only for the reason that the word "black" when applied to people is defined differently in different cultures. African Americans and people of various African nations can have their own lists. Not sure what to do with Euro-African people (who would be called "black" in the USA but not in many other countries.) There could be an article on Race in modeling which could mention models who have been pioneers or otherwise noted for their race. BigJim707 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have never accepted to treat all people of African descent as one ethnic group in a trans-national sense. Afro-Brazilians and African-Americans are two distinct ethnic groups, and Kenyans are a third. We categorize by ethnicity not race. Thus List of African-American models, List of Afro-Brazilian models and List of Kenyan models would all work, but I do not think a trans-national list works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated by the nom and by the other commenters, we categorize based on ethnicity not on race. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claim about existing practise is false — see List of black Britons or List of black NHL players, for example. The topic has great notability as there are several books about it and so WP:LISTN is satisfied. For example, see

Furthermore, for a model, the appearance of the skin is of much greater importance than other attributes such as language and so the adjective black is quite appropriate here. Per WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:CENSOR, we should follow the sources in this matter rather than seeking to suppress the topic.

Finally, note that the nominator suggests using material from this article to create new lists. Deletion would be improper as we require the edit history for attribution per the licensing policy.

Warden (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Google hits to "white fashion models" as well [2], but that doesn't change Wikipedia policy on this issue. The assertion in the nomination about existing practice also refers to the lack of counterpart racial pages (viz. List of white fashion models). Instead, only ethnicity based pages such as List of Pakistani models exist. This is consistent with MOS:IDENTITY. On the other hand, the euphemism policy has no bearing here and says nothing about the treatment of identity. The censorship policy is likewise subordinate to and does not negate other policies ("content that[...] violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed"). Middayexpress (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete / replace - while Warden's analysis is compelling, I somewhat disagree with the use of List of black Britons and List of black NHL players as examples. My concern is that both trans-national race and the occupation in question are somewhat subjective. I'm not suggesting they can't be adequately defined for our purposes here, I'm just not excited about the idea of doing so. In the case of the examples above, there's very little subjectivity in either "Briton" or "NHL player", even if there is conjecture about whether someone identifies as "black". I suppose the same could be said for "fashion model" if we adequately define the professional parameters being used. Anyway, I suppose I'd much rather see a well-written article about Black Fashion Models, citing the sources given above, properly analysing the "cultural impact" assertions and listing some of the more notable black fashion models. Much like Black players in American professional football (to use another sports-based analogy) or even Black science fiction. Stalwart111 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make a category: Seems to be something that should be made a category. p b p 01:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a category previously existed but was deleted, only a few weeks ago. That was my first thought too. Stalwart111 01:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That category deletion was an error, and should be revisited, not copied. This is an example of where surface appearance of individuals is relevant to the professional role. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was deleted because of Wikipedia:EGRS#Ethnicity_and_race ("ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not"). Middayexpress (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They get coverage for being black. I restored some entries that were removed by the nominator, for no valid reason at all, which include Yasmin Warsame who has been featured in the 2008 "Vogue Italia" All Black Issue. A notable magazines has an All Black Issue. Other magazines that cater to a black audience only have black models on their covers. Dream Focus 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia best practices are not determined by the whims of fashion magazine editors. They are governed by wiki's own internal set of policies and guidelines. The latter expressly discourage subjective, race based categorization; they recommend instead factual, ethnicity based categorization. Middayexpress (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY Dream Focus 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability policy doesn't say anything specific about identity. However, it does indicate that its stipulations must be consistent with other wiki policies/guidelines. That said, MOS:IDENTITY instructs to "use specific terminology[...] For example, often it is more appropriate for people from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African." This, in turn, implies that moving the individual entries to new ethnicity based list pages such as List of African American models, List of Nigerian models, etc., in the model of List of South Korean models, would be more appropriate than any race based list page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTLAW, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." The MOS is in the hands of cranks who bicker endlessly about the difference between hyphens, n-dashes and other minutiae and so drive off sensible editors. There are plenty of cranks who bicker about nationality too and so reorganising the topic along those lines would be a can-of-worms. Yasmin Warsame, for example, was born in Somalia and now works in various countries including Canada, France, Italy and the USA. WP:LISTN and WP:SAL indicate that we should base our lists upon reliable sources. Sources which correspond to the current structure have been produced in evidence above. We have no corresponding evidence for other types of structure. Warden (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notlaw applies to all policies/guidelines equally, including those just linked to. Per WP:PG, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." Besides MOS:IDENTITY, that would include WP:ETHNICGROUP, which contains conventions on how to name Wikipedia articles about peoples, ethnicities and tribes: "How the group self-identifies should be considered[...] If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." Autonym based ethnicity list titles, such as List of African American models, List of Nigerian models, etc., are thus more appropriate. Middayexpress (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, in this specific case, it's not the ethnic group that's relevant but the skin colour. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is on individuals, and WP:ETHNICGROUP applies to all "peoples, ethnicities and tribes". Middayexpress (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this article is not about models from a "people, ethnicity and tribe" but about models with a particular skin colour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't appear to be the situation. The skin tones of the women vary greatly; some aren't particularly dark. But let's say for the sake of argument that that's correct and the list is about models with a particular skin colour. Where would that leave other dusky females in the profession, like the Indian model Lakshmi Menon? It's uncertain because the "black" skin tone in the title is undefined and ultimately subjective. Imagine a list where Japanese and European models are listed together solely based on their light skin tone. The effect would be the same and equally confusing and unencyclopedic. Middayexpress (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources cover the "black" race, and black models, just like they do black actors, and black musicians. There are notable award shows dedicated to people of just one ethnic group. We use the word "black" in other articles already. Historically black colleges and universities, List of Black Canadians, Black Canadians, Black sitcom, even an article for Black people. We also have articles with the word Latino or Hispanic in them, such as List of Latino Republicans. Dream Focus 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Black" is not an ethnic group. It's a grouping of peoples based on perceived ancestry, whether real or not. Latino is not equivalent to black here because there is no color component involved in that term. There are many Google hits to "white fashion models" as well [3], yet no List of white fashion models wikipedia page exists. And indeed there shouldn't be because WP:ETHNICGROUP, which contains conventions on peoples in general, instructs that: "How the group self-identifies should be considered[...] If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." The autonym/endonym of several of the models in the list is not "black". It's instead their own actual ethnicity. This is why autonym/ethnicity based list titles, such as List of African American models, List of Nigerian models, etc., remain the most appropriate naming convention here. Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With any form of categorisation there will be some difficult borderline cases. That doesn't detract from the fact that in the particular case of models it makes much more sense to categorise on the basis of reliably sourced external appearance rather than cultural or genetic heritage. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The particular, dark skin color alluded to is not actually the skin tone of several of the models in the list. It is also found in many different populations around the world. The latter especially isn't a borderline situation. Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then the solution is to remove those entries, not to delete the whole list. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point at where I start having concerns. Do we include only those models who have self-identified as black (in a manner that can be WP:V with WP:RS)? Do we arbitrarily include any model with African-American heritage? I can see the value in acknowledging the broad (and well-sourced) contribution of black men and women to the fashion modelling industry, but are we really going to just pick-and-chose who we consider to be black and list them? I see a few problems with that. Stalwart111 23:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You use editorial judgment on things like this. You use common sense. You can obviously tell the difference between someone who is Indian, such as the before mentioned Lakshmi Menon [4], and someone who is black. Dream Focus 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a link to the actress Lakshmi Menon, not the older model of the same name. The latter looks like certain women from the Horn of Africa specifically (e.g. [5]). So it does in many instances come down to subjectivity. Middayexpress (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All classifications are subjective because they are man-made and so determined by particular people. For this reason, we base all our work upon reliable sources, rather than deciding for ourselves. As there are plenty of reliable sources which document this topic, we have no special difficulty in this case. The talk page for the article does not indicate that there has been any major disputes — nothing like the fighting over the spelling of Yoghourt, for example. Warden (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also plenty of Google links to "white fashion models" [6], yet no List of white fashion models page exists. This brings us back to square one and WP:ETHNICGROUP: "How the group self-identifies should be considered[...] If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title[...] Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." The autonym/endonym of several of the models in the list is not "black"; it's instead their own actual ethnicity. "Black" is an exonym. This is why autonym/ethnicity based list titles, such as List of African American models, List of Nigerian models, etc., remain the most appropriate naming convention here. Middayexpress (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another article not existing is not a reason to delete this one. You repeating yourself constantly doesn't prove your case. Dream Focus 16:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my replies are repetitive, that may be because what I'm responding to is repetitive and consistently ignores policy governing the issue. It obviously also does matter if this is literally the only wikipedia page on models classified according to a color based scheme. All of the other similar standalone lists, such as List of Pakistani models and List of South Korean models, are sorted according to autonym/ethnicity, as per WP:ETHNICGROUP. Middayexpress (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category:lists of models shows them to be classified in various ways — by magazine cover seems to be a common way. These various ways are fine provided that the method of classification is to be found in sources per WP:LISTN. This is certainly the case for the list we discuss here and so we're good. Per WP:ALLORNOTHING, we are not required to sort models into some universal and uniform scheme. We just follow the sources. Warden (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALLORNOTHING and LISTN don't apply here because there are no other analogous lists on Wikipedia to begin with, and I don't believe there ever have been. This is literally the only list of models on the website, whether in Category:Lists of models or elsewhere, that is sorted according to skin color. All of the other lists of models that deal with identity, such as List of Nepalese models, are sorted according to ethnicity. Middayexpress (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful to anybody studying black women's history or modelling.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Middayexpress makes some very good points here. Except one wonders if exclusion, by reason of self-expressed preference for ethnicity over skin-colour, would not rather devalue this list. But it's surprising to see it on the article blacklist, as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ETHNICGROUP instructs to sort by ethnicity. On this basis, the nomination recommends reassigning the list's entries to new or existing ethnicity based lists, in the model of List of Nepalese models, List of Japanese bondage models, etc.. Several other respondents seem to agree. Middayexpress (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure no encyclopeadia wants to reinforce the facile myth that the world is made up of "black people" and "white people". Some might even regard such a popular dichotomy as racist. But I wonder whether, in the world of fashion, skin colour is generally seen as a more significant means of distinguishing between models, than is ethnicity. Even if it is, of course, we might be simply perpetuating an unfair discrimination if we mimic it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Black people says "The term black people is an everyday English-language phrase, often used by native speakers of English to refer to people of Sub-Saharan African descent." That is what we are talking about, a race, not an actual skin pigmentation. Dream Focus 13:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, I kinda guessed we weren't talking about actual skin pigmentation. I was suggesting that the world of fashion prefers to see people as part of a race than as part of any particular ethnic group (shock, horror.. ) p.s. where are the men (and maybe there's a UK/US difference going on here?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fashion world tends to see people in terms of "looks". So while one "look" is in one season, it could be out the next. That includes skin color, which is a more consistent trait amongst many of the concerned models than are facial features, bone structure, body type, hair form, etc.. (not to mention actual ancestry). Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point entirely. The question is, should we reflect that tendency? To make a (dubious but plausible) analogy - Wikipedia surely agrees that the geographical origins of a wine (as well as the grape variety) is quite important, but we still have articles for this and this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's no equivalent of the second link in this instance; just the first link. And where a wine is grown today may not necessarily have been where it originally evolved. Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. It's not a very brilliant analogy! But, as I think as you would agree, the fashion industry doesn't really care about the vinyard, or the grape, or the origin in the grape. In fact, they just want something that shows off the pretty label. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus: Do I understand you correctly now when you state that the list is about race and not models of a particular skin color (as Phil, among several others who voted against the deletion/redirect, clearly wrote)? Also note that the dark skin article states in its introduction that "people with very dark skin are often referred to as black" and that "the presence of dark skin is bad genetic marker even among African populations[...] for example, dark-skinned Ethiopians share more genetic affinity with light-skinned Armenians and Norwegians, than with dark-skinned Bantu populations". The same could be said for the ancestry of many peoples from Somalia vs. other African populations (c.f. [7]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on past outcomes. This is the sort of list that we have had many arguments over, the end result of which has been to keep similar lists. The concept of a 'black model' is so well-accepted that it needs a list for our readers to comprehend the scope of that concept. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2013 (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.