Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Lives Matter


 * 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 redirect to Black Lives Matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

White Lives Matter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested(??????) PROD. Notability has been questioned. Procedural nomination. Adam9007 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Black Lives Matter. What the nominator means is that the article was prodded, and the article creator removed the prod.  Someone then prodded it again, and Adam9007 removed the second prod, correctly pointing out that it had already been prodded.  The article creator edit warred to maintain the invalid prod, edit warred to remove a speedy deletion tag, and finally edit warred to remove the AfD tag.  Unsurprisingly, the article creator is currently blocked.  Anyway, this is already summarized at Black Lives Matter.  There's quite a bit of coverage on Google News, but it's generally in the context of Black Lives Matter.  For example:, , , .  I have a feeling this will eventually be spun off into its own article, but it's not necessary yet.  Let's wait until the topic becomes unwieldy in the parent article.  The BLM article is only around 43K (7000 words) of prose text, which means it could be expanded a bit more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as the original nominator. Initially, the article was sourced to a blog entry which did not actually use the phrase. Now it is sourced to two articles from the media, one of which does not use the phrase, and the other in fact says the opposite of what the Wikipedia article says: the article posits 'Blacks Lives Matter' as a hate group, while the reference calls 'White Lives Matter' a hate group! - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been rewritten, but it is still shorter than the coverage of the phrase in the main Black Lives Matter article. I agree that the hate group is only notable in the context of the 'Black Lives Matter' movement; there's probably no need for a separate article at the moment. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect There is not much independent coverage here: the reaction to BLM can be covered, and should be covered, at that page. Vanamonde (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect There's nothing that can be said here that's not already said at Black Lives Matter. Additionally, the group is only notable in context with BLM (WP:NOPAGE). clpo13(talk) 15:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Significant international coverage in New York Times, USA Today, Russia Today, NBC News... Might have been good to check WP:BEFORE nominating or commenting.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Opining to keep, because the topic passes WP:GNG, and a close of redirect at AfD sets a poor precedent for an obviously notable topic. No prejudice against merging at this time, but also no prejudice against having a standalone article based upon available sources, some of which includes, but is not limited to:, , , , , , , , . North America1000 03:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Obviously is notable due to rs coverage. I wish there was some kind of policy on sole sentence articles though. Yes it's notable, but will the reader, the customer in this context, learn anything from reading this oneliner? I don't think so.  ron az Talk!  12:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)I don't think this is independently notable of BLM. What's more,
 * Redirect (or merge but there's nothing to merge.) I understand and respect the reasoning North America and Ronaz elaborate in their keep votes but I don't think this is so obviously notable. All the coverage is in relationship to BLM (so, not independently notable) and moreover, it's all from just a couple days of press, so it doesn't qualify as sustained coverage. Knowing the SPLC is taking it seriously is some indication we may see more coverage in the future--but also maybe not. They've tracked many groups the media hasn't bothered to cover. Now, SPLC updates going forward + this initial burst of press could eventually flesh out an article but we're not there yet. AfD redirect is well in line with existing practice; and a revisiting if there's more sourcing in the future would be too. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I understand where the "Keep" votes are coming from, but WLM is really only of interest in the context of BLM.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:48, 22 September 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.