Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Women Radicals

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 delete, there is clear consensus in the discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Women Radicals

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I doubt that this organization fits the notability standard for organizations. All of the sources used are either just passing mentions of the organization itself, sources published by the organization itself, or sources that are obviously not applicable to the article itself (like using Wikimedia Commons as a source). The few reliable sources I found also don't seem like the level of coverage needed for a stand-alone article. Sources that I found on Google that weren't in the article either didn't refer to the organization itself (instead using "black women radicals" as a generic term for black women in radical politics) or also didn't consist of significant coverage. The article was also deleted many times prior due to copyright violations and reading like an advertisement.

One more thing of note is that this article was created by Howard University students in the course Black Women and Popular Culture (Fall 2021). There have been many issues with the articles created for this course, and multiple comments to WikiEd have not helped; see the article Ratchet Feminism, which was created for this course, eventually redirected as a content fork, and restored inappropriately (without any consensus or discussion beforehand) by the instructor themselves.

And before anyone comments that this AfD is meant as an erasure of black people or accuses me of erasing minorities, I am not. I am simply stating that the article does not fit notability standards, in my opinion. wizzito | say hello! 21:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This has been a particularly botched Wiki Ed, and I don't have a very positive view of Wiki Ed in the first place. The sourcing just doesn't demonstrate NORG-level notability -- very little of it passes that SNG's standards for independence and reliability. While this version of the article isn't an unsalvageable copyvio, it also still had significant NFCC issues last time I earwigged it that were intertwined enough to be difficult to extract; this ties in with the simple lack of sourcing, in that there simply isn't enough to say on the org for the students to rewrite it in their own words. Vaticidalprophet 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the required sig-cov from reliable sources here. The AAIHS source doesn't mentioned this org [1];Blavity might qualify as an WP:RS, but the coverage isn't very deep in this link [2], and the second Blavity link only mentions BWR in the photo credit [3]; the Dazed article mentions the org in passing [4]; the New School Research Matters link doesn't mention the org at all [5]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. I can't seem to find any real significant coverage of this organisation that is truly independent of it. firefly ( t · c ) 08:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough RS to support notability. I agree with Ohnoitsjamie's sourcing assessment; the sources that are out there aren't in depth enough. It's too bad this was an educational assignment; I'm noticing a lot of problems with the list of articles created through that particular class. --Kbabej (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks as if the instructor of the course is canvassing on Twitter here. --Kbabej (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we are going to keep articles on small yet regional high schools like Chaminade High School in Mineola NY we should keep this. This will fundamentally show that wikipedias bias against black women Racial bias on Wikipedia is a huge issue. And I am not just some straw editor I have been here for a hot minuet. WngLdr34 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WngLdr34: That would be an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. No one is arguing there isn't a bias against black women on WP. This article was nominated because it lacks sig coverage from RS, a requirement for all articles on WP. --Kbabej (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the organization is personally attacking me on Twitter for attempting to erase Black women, even though I had stated upfront multiple times that I was not trying to. wizzito | say hello! 01:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followers of the organization are also being ageist towards me for my comments, and I've had to lock my social media because of them. See here, for example. This says a lot about the organization and that the course's ambition was to likely "right great wrongs". wizzito | say hello! 02:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion about this and the problems with Ratchet feminism here: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 21#Organized harassment of me over botched course wizzito | say hello! 18:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find enough reliable sources to demonstrate that this organisation is notable. Searching for the term "black women radicals" gives a large number of false positives. Meanwhile, all of the secondary sources that are currently in the article are not reliable. Overall, it appears that this article was created to promote the organisation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:32, 17 December 2021 (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.