It seems that a particle can be completely described by 1) mass, 2) charge 3) spin (or angular momentum)

It seems that a black hole can be completely described by 1) mass, 2) charge 3) spin (or angular momentum)

Is there a reason for this similarity ?

I am not sure about the particles. Take electron neutrino and electron anti-neutrino, for example. They have the same 1), 2), and 3), but they are different particles.

Because black holes are formed from particles in sufficiently close proximity 

15 hours ago, JimA said:

It seems that a particle can be completely described by 1) mass, 2) charge 3) spin (or angular momentum)

This is not true, because there are more fundamental interactions than just electromagnetism. Once you consider the weak and strong interactions, then the types of particles which are subject to these will carry more properties, such as colour charge, weak isospin, chirality etc etc. There is no equivalent to these properties for black holes, not even in principle.

16 hours ago, JimA said:

It seems that a black hole can be completely described by 1) mass, 2) charge 3) spin (or angular momentum)

I forgot to mention - the above (called the “no-hair conjecture”) is true only in stationary spacetimes, so it is not generally applicable in all cases. Secondly, intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of quantum systems isn’t the same notion as the classical angular momentum of objects such as black holes. 

Quote

Definition of black hole

...United States budget? ;)

The black hole sucks everything they can get, just like any government..