Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Women in Europe Blog

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. Sandstein 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Women in Europe Blog

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

This article was previously proposed for deletion, deleted, and then restored on the request of an IP editor. Unfortunately, the notability concerns remain. Most of the coverage of the blog in independent sources consists of brief mentions rather than anything of significant depth. The awards that the blog has won do not appear to be particularly significant ones. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a list of awards, none are bluelinked, and most appear to be given to blogs by groups of bloggers; I can't see that these give much support to notability; they may not even be independent of subject. Worse, is the utter lack of evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. a gNews search comes up blank: [1]. Sources on page include two books, one Don't Bring Home a White Boy: And Other Notions that Keep Black is written by one of the bloggers who write this blog "“I started the Black Women in Europe (BWIE) blog after moving to Sweden because I wanted to connect with other black women in Europe." , the other book is a mere inclusion on a list "The women envisiaged utilising various social websites and blogs such as Facebook, BEWC, Black Women in Europe Blog, Afro European ...". In sum, this is mere PROMO by a fan or a blogger. Mere PROMO overstuffed with worthless sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wow. Former PROD in a different appearance of the article, then deleted. I don't imagine a clarification would be needed at WP:NOQUORUM, but is a first for me at least. Note to closing editor: In the discussion's current state, I would think that an full delete would be the best closure if this discussion attracts no more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your comment, J947. What is it that's unusual here? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Former PRODs mean the article cannot be deleted under soft deletion, but this former PROD was a PROD that was in a former version of the article, and then the article got deleted due to that PROD, and then the article was restored to its same version, so I am assuming that the article is ineligible for soft deletion. That's what makes it unusual. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable blog fails WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2017 (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.