Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Girl Bill of Rights


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Black Girl Bill of Rights

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May not meet "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. Seems to fail WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST. RA 0808 talkcontribs 01:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please keep this page. It is a working document for the Black Girls Bill of Rights, where Black girls will declare the long- and short-term rights that they would like for politicians to really fight for,” Where they are simply demanding their humanitarian rights.


 * Here are some additional sources.
 * https://www.facebook.com/girlsforgenderequity/photos/pb.165741433480093.-2207520000.1461016678./996401230414105/?type=3&theater
 * https://twitter.com/alondra/status/718921357074046976


 * Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make this page suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valreed93 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Social media posts are, for the most part, not considered reliable sources (see WP:UGC). Wikipedia is not the place for working documents or promoting a cause, regardless of how worthy that cause may be. Please see What Wikipedia is Not. RA 0808  talkcontribs 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for "working documents". You may find it more useful to look into a Wikia to aid editing a working document together with likeminded individuals.  Wikipedia is for reporting on things that other people have reported on, only.  This article has multiple references, but each of these references only state that the Congressional Caucus on Black Women and Girls exists, not that this bill of rights was presented, or any information about this bill of rights at all.  There are no reliable secondary sources that this is something that has even happened, and without reliable secondary sources, we cannot include it in Wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  RA 0808  talkcontribs 02:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This bill of rights has been reported on in several reliable sources listed below, this page is meant to merely be educational, not promotional.
 * http://www.movetoendviolence.org/blog/black-girl-magic/
 * http://www.essence.com/2016/04/06/first-black-girls-movement-conference-coming-new-york-city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valreed93 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Review of Movetoendviolence reference: The article text does not mention it at all. There is a video link that has it in the title, however, the article is about the caucus, and the video appears to be providing an example of the sort of thing the caucus does, not being an in-depth report about the bill itself.  I would call this a "trivial" mention, and not an establishment of notability.
 * Review of Essence reference: The article does not discuss the bill of rights except to mention it in passing, not as a thing that exists, but as a thing they look forwards to seeing once it does exist. This reference does not provide notability.
 * Unfortunately, my !vote for deletion must still stand. Maybe this SHOULD be of more importance.  Maybe this SHOULD have more coverage, more media attention.  Alas, this particular subtopic of the caucus does not appear to have the sufficient attention of reliable secondary sources, even those interested in the caucus to being with.  As such, Wikipedia can't sustain an article on it.
 * There may be a valid argument that these two references are sufficient to allow a reference in the main caucus article. However, even in this contingency, all that could be stated would be the name of the bill, and the fact that it exists.  The contents of the bill, and the majority of this article, are unsourced and thus must remain excluded. Fieari (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The ambition and enthusiasm of this project is admirable, but the coverage of it in reliable sources is simply not sufficient at this point (WP:TOOSOON) to do anything but delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I have tagged as G11 since there's nothing at all seemingly convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've declined the speedy since this still has one more day at AfD, so it'd be a better idea all around to just let the last day roll out here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:10, 27 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.