Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early 21st-century civil rights movement


 * 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. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems identified in the nomination.  Sandstein  11:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Early 21st-century civil rights movement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NEO and WP:SYNTH —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 22:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nomination statement, while extremely succinct, is correct. I commented about this article being synthesis here at ORN and at the article's talk page. Everything discussed in this article is obviously noteworthy, but it's also all covered elsewhere. The article is cobbling together various current and recent events and treating them as a distinct "Early 21st century civil rights movement", which is original research and for which there is little evidence in reliable sources. There is this, but that is one professor, and he clearly is talking specifically about Black Lives Matter, which already has an article. There's also this, but this uses the word "maybe", and in any case we don't have enough to meet WP:GNG, nor can we get around the fact that gathering these current events under this label in the way the article does is synthesis. We need to avoid WP:Recentism; the job of what to call this era and how to label its events falls to academic experts, not us Wikipedia editors. Any good and non-redundant material can be merged out to their respective topics. Crossroads -talk- 22:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Updated. Crossroads -talk- 23:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is a WP:POV which assumes facts not in evidence. This is an amalgamation of various disjointed protests that are brought together to create WP:SYNTH. Lightburst (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a content fork of Black Lives Matter. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the early 2010s, civil rights movements have resurged to levels not seen since the 1960s, especially in 2020. And I respectfully disagree with Indy beetle. I believe this has become a wider topic than just Black Lives Matter and therefore we need more than just one article addressing our current social climate. Modern civil rights seem to expand past the topic of police brutality. Some examples are systemic racism, white privilege, institutionalized racism, police corruption, racist laws like "stop and frisk", LGBTQ+ discrimination and hate crimes, immigration, poverty in communities of color, voter suppression, socioeconomic disadvantages, the impact redlining has today on communities of color, racial disparities in education, gentrification, mass incarceration of black and Hispanic people, as well as the the debate on the removal of Confederate statues. Other important points include a rise in hate crimes, hate groups and domestic terrorism by white supremacist movements. We've also seen civil rights icons emerge such as Colin Kaepernick. Miss HollyJ (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia cannot say there is an "Early 21st-century civil rights movement" until reliable sources begin to call it an "Early 21st-century civil rights movement", something that hasn't quite happened yet. This article really is synthesis of existing sourcing. Under "21st-century civil rights movement", there's a law fellow asking if black lives matter is a 21st-century civil rights movement, but that just means BLM is notable, a NYTimes mag subtitled "How a group of black social media activists built the nation's first 21st-century civil rights movement." and the guardian, but these again are about BLM specifically. There's a WaPo op-ed arguing that we need a 21st century CRM, but not saying there is one. "2020 civil rights movement" is pretty much a non-starter, there's local news. There are a couple of news articles writing about a second civil rights movement (The hill for one). However, sources, by and large, haven't recognized a widespread civil rights movement ongoing, and it's near impossible for something like that to be identified while it's happening. BLM is considered by some to be a new civil rights movement, but it's not yet clear that there's a larger defined movement outside of BLM (itself an organized movement) Eddie891 Talk Work 12:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia follows the sources, it does not lead out in inventing new terms that do not exist yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a beginning emergence of a new civil rights movement and many articles and news media such as MSNBC and the Washington Post are beginning to write about this movement and acknowledging it as new Civil Rights Movement. And the rapid change in legislation coincides very much with how the last civil rights movement went about doing things in it's timeline. Deleting too me seems very quick because based on the new media coming out calling this a new civil rights movement will only grow and with greater momentum to come so if this is deleted we would just have to rebuild this article from scratch once more. I'm willing to delete if this article is at least archived somewhere and can used as a building block later for the recreation of this article. IceBrotherhood (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You could propose Userfication as an alternative outcome of this AfD, but I'm not sure whether speculative predictions about the term being established in the future will be seen as a sufficient rationale for that. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per Crossroads and Eddie891. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2020 (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.