Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mask Bloc


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Mask Bloc

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I don't believe these groups meet the notability criteria for organisations, there is limited in-depth coverage of the phenomena. This is too soon for this to be an article, and borderline promotional of the advocacy group. Jeff UK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and COVID-19. Jeff UK  06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a group its more like an organizing tactic similar to Black Blocs and I don't see how its too soon as the covid pandemic is an ongoing situation and had an article as soon as it was named. The article is important information for an ongoing pandemic I don't see why it would be deleted. Wikibobdobbs (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I strongly disagree with the suggestion of removing this article, and I'm confused as to how it can be justified, given that the movement is very much an active (and growing) one. I'm currently beginning research on this specific form of mutual aid as part of my postgraduate dissertation, and while the article needs to be cleaned up for consistent formatting, etc., there is no reason (other than a "political" objection to masking) to remove this at present, even if the information is under-reported.  This is "grey literature," essentially. MAINShorebird (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Cited sources are all passing mentions and I couldn't find anything on Google that was reliable and featured sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, This was already deleted by the time I made this reply. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2024 (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.