This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
In December 2010, the article was nominated for deletion a second time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (2nd nomination). A number of concerns were noted in that discussion that must be addressed. The consensus is that this article was in bad shape when it was nominated for deletion in 2009, but that the deletion was overturned to give editors and opportunity to improve it. No progress has been made. In the meantime, the article which covers all of Davenport, Iowa has become a GA and has been nominated for FA. Although the article was kept, some of the problematic content, such as the statements that school administrators held black students who immigrated from Mississippi back one grade level, presumably so that they would be physically larger than their classmates, has been deleted. Additional content will also be deleted unless it is sourced. Racepacket (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strongly Disagree with the assertion "No progress has been made" in improving since original nomination. It has been completely overhauled, and is substantially improved by any measure. Compare current revision with the revison at the time of original deletion nomination on 23:48, 20 February 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_Americans_in_Davenport,_Iowa&oldid=272170113 That does not mean it can be improved further, of course, just like any article. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strongly Disagree I just read this article while going through the backlog registry (the article was labeled for "original research") and I think it is a strong article. Certainly, like many articles it could be strengthened with more citations but overall I think it is above average and would oppose deletion. Jmbranum (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
