- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 16:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- American Descendants of Slavery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the topic of reparations in American politics is notable (and discussed at Reparations for slavery debate in the United States), this group does not appear to be notable. Only the Vox reference seems to discuss the group. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
*Delete Article and almost all of the sources are about reparations for slavery, not about this ORG. A quick gNews search on "American Descendants of Slavery" does turns up a few mentions. Problems. 1.) Page purports to be about an ORG, but offers no sourced info about the ORG itself. 2.) Page fails to establish that this ORG is notable. 3.) Page as written is a
WP:COATRACK for sundry arguments related to
Reparations for slavery and
Reparations for slavery debate in the United States, an unnecessary duplication. Compare with
The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, not a great page, but certainly a respectable page about the topic . If someone can source and rewrite this into a page on the organization it purports to be about - with
WP:RS establishing that it is notable - ping me and I will cheerfully reconsider.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
20:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep if this were NORG, where I apply my strictest interpretation of GNG, I might not be a keep. However, as a movement/hashtag more analogous to Black Lives Matter than the NAACP I'm a keep. Examples of RS coverage I found fairly quickly beyond Vox: the best coverage is from Daily Dot article entirely about the movement, followed by Buzzfeed (several paragraphs focusing on the movement, though not focus of story), with more passing mentions by The Hill and Washington Post (these last two notably not being signficant but are showing that this movement is receiving notice worthy of encyclopedic coverage. This current article needs some TNT which I would be willing to apply if this is kept but I think the topic itself is notable. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Barkeep49, this is a distinctive sub-stream of the reparations movement, that should be covered as such, and, like BLM, it is more an idea and online discourse than a single organization. I agree also that the more generic stuff about reparations in general should be pared down, and the particular aspects of this stream emphasized.-- Pharos ( talk) 14:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
-
User:Barkeep49,
User:Pharos, are you OK with cutting this down to a stub until addition sources are found? Daily Dot and Vox are fine, but I am uncomfortable keeping the History, United Nations, and 2020 US Presidential Election, which constitute a sort of
WP:ESSAY about reparations but which do not appear to have sources that discuss this ORG.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- E.M.Gregory, absolutely. I mentioned in my !vote that it needs TNT and if you're willing to do it now, or at least some percentage of it now, fantastic. I will note, however, for any closers reading this that I am unconvinced that this article is covered in scope by ORG. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
-
User:Barkeep49,
User:Pharos, are you OK with cutting this down to a stub until addition sources are found? Daily Dot and Vox are fine, but I am uncomfortable keeping the History, United Nations, and 2020 US Presidential Election, which constitute a sort of
WP:ESSAY about reparations but which do not appear to have sources that discuss this ORG.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per sources found from which an adequate article can be written. Swaths of extraneous material removed; article stubified. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per the Washington Post and other sources found by Barkeep. WP:NOTCLEANUP good work by the ivoters that came before me. Lightburst ( talk) 23:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Barkeep49. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 00:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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.