Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black pride


 * 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 speedy keep. Per this edit, I'm closing this according to WP:SK. In addition, the current state of sourcing has no basis on the notability of a subject. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 08:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Black pride

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources Ylevental (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable and reliable sources are readily available, such as this book, Black Pride: A People's Struggle, published by McGraw-Hill. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So then add it to the article Ylevental (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. North America1000 22:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep – Entire books are devoted to the subject, e.g., , . See also WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America1000 22:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per North above. Easily sourced and I'd do it myself except that the page is protected at present. Possible nomination in bad faith through not understanding proper sourcing as against notability. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - But page needs to be expanded with reliable sources. Subject is definitely notable. Meatsgains (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put in a request for Ylevental's deletions from the article to be reverted and sourced on the talk page. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - bad faith nomination.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and considering this edit summary at Talk:White pride as evidence of WP:DLS suitable sanctions for the nominator. Mduvekot (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ratemonth (talk) 04:20, 10 February 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.