Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Black Women Over 50

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. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

50 Black Women Over 50[edit]

[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)

A noble work they may be doing, but Wikipedia isn’t a platform for creating awareness nor advertising, coupled with the fact that the project doesn’t appear to be a notable one as it lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Contains no reliable sources. Borders on WP:NOTADVOCACY Snickers2686 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear notable. I'm unable to find any independent coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found no coverage to meet WP:GNG on a search, unfortunately Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although as the article creator I'm biased. I dug up some coverage of the project founder where the project is discussed and added a citation to that. There does seem to be a limited number of news articles documenting the project, but compare to Glenwood Archeological District, a random article I just rolled, which also has very little news coverage yet passes the notability standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenomeFan92 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @GenomeFan92, Please always sign your comments, see WP:SIGN. Now, the source you linked above is an interview, which means it isn’t independent of the subject thus has no value to WP:GNG. The entire article constitutes what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry @Celestina007; still getting the hang of WP's discussion systems. The interview I linked mentions the project in the section of the article written by the reporter to give context to who they're interviewing; I'm not relying on the statements of the interviewed person to source the claim in the article. WP:GNG doesn't call out interviews as non-independent for notability purposes, just "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GenomeFan92, it’s the same difference. it fails to establish notability, and a mention of the project in the source doesn’t do anything for WP:GNG which requires WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, your earlier argument that you came across an article similar to yours on mainspace is being WP:POINTy & also constitutes WP:ATA. I think you should understand our policy on notability better before proceeding to creating articles directly to mainspace, perhaps use the WP:AFC method instead? Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Celestina007 is actually probably right about there not yet being enough WP:SIGCOV to prove the notability of the subject here. The interview of the founder definitely isn't significant coverage of the project, even if the introductory material written by the reporter is sufficiently independent of the project and the interviewee. I personally think the project is important and notable, but if there's not enough material in independent reliable sources, the article can't become much more than a stub, and at that point it begins to look like an entry in a WP:DIRECTORY of small advocacy organizations. I didn't try to employ a WP:WAX argument to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. I think it's the strongest keep argument I have; it's just not very strong. I'll see if I can dig up any more good coverage on the last page of Google, but if I cant I think I'm going to have to change my vote. GenomeFan92 (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through all the search results I could find, and I found nontrivial independent coverage of the book Jewels: 50 Phenomenal Black Women Over 50, but not anything else about this project. GenomeFan92 (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and lacks secondary sources for any useful information. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Literally no news coverage. ----Pontificalibus 07:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 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.