Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlackMattersUS


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

BlackMattersUS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cursory earch shows insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:ORG. RA 0808 talkcontribs 16:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 16:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 16:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * this article needs to be improved and it is not finished yet, so I need time to find more information and I ask not to delete it so quick, may be other users can help to improve it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrtn (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. This organisation may well become notable, but it doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage yet. None of the independent sources cited in the article actually mention BlackMattersUS by name. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable. Website began in late November 2015 according to a WHOIS search on blackmattersus.com. As this is a news outlet focusing entirely on internet medium, this indicates they haven't been in operation for long. Date headers appear to have been manipulated, but take that with a grain of salt. A good tip for anyone searching for sources to look for content and coverage of blackmatterus.com published past Nov 23, 2015 through Google Advanced Search and Google News. There is no indication that this organization is notable whatsoever, even within the audience that it caters to. Based on my searches, there is no way whatsoever that any other users can contribute in terms of reliable secondary sources that can cite notability and reliably. Cyanhat (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I searched, and cannot find reliable, secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't delete - E.M.Gregory What about the article on HuffingtonPost about the event set up by BlackMattersUS with the link to that event on Facebook page of the community? Isn't HuffPost a reliable source? Check out this link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kali-nicole-gross/six-years-later-still-no-justice-for-aiyana-stanley-jones_b_9959856.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrtn (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The HuffPo source does not mention BlackMattersUS (or "Black Matters US"... or any other permutation of the name). RA 0808  talkcontribs 11:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:42, . A single link in a news article does not constitute significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification of my comment: the article does link to the website, but the organization is not actually named. RA 0808  talkcontribs 22:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as newly started, nothing at all actually suggesting the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:51, 31 May 2016 (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.