Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White antiracists in western Massachusetts


 * 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 badly sourced, pov, advert like. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

White antiracists in western Massachusetts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article created as a collection of biographies. Biographies have been split, and the article now lacks substance. Fightindaman 21:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with nom, article lacks reason to exist since it lacks material. Pharmboy 22:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Speedy close as bad faith nom I think this is a bad faith nom. Fightindaman split out the bios himself from White antiracists in western Massachusetts (see ), then created separate bio articles for the people listed, and has now moved all of those individual bios to AfD as well. See: Articles for deletion/Diane Beers, Articles for deletion/Andrea Ayvazian, Articles for deletion/Sandra Fitzpatrick, Articles for deletion/Anita Magovern, Articles for deletion/Patricia Ramsey (activist), Articles for deletion/Russ Vernon-Jones. Wl219 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: And as I mentioned in another nomination, the split was not my idea. I could have proposed the article for deletion as a whole, but I thought that by splitting them it would allow each to receive its own judgment rather than have to be judged together. Fightindaman 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is badly sourced and confining the debate to it.Feel it does not deserve a separate article.Harlowraman 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete them all even if the moved content is moved back. Even if this is a bad faith nom, it's brought a genuine problem to light; once you strip out the NPOV violations, OR and general advert-like tone from each entry, there's not much left - and is there really any possibility that "White antiracists in western Massachusetts" passes WP:N as a topic in and of itself? (google count minus Wiki mirrors on the phrase brings up a grand total of 0 articles - the one hit is in fact still a WP mirror). Whatever the reasons for the nomination I'd have to go with delete the lot as it stands unless WP:RSs can be found for the individual entries by the time these AfDs close —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this article (the intersection of "white", "antiracist," and "western Massachusetts" is not inherently notable). Close individual-person nominations without prejudice -- the articles should be considered on their own merits and not nominated for their association with this list. --orlady 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not just antiracists, but White antiracists.... in Massachusetts... not all of Mass, but the western part of the state... but if we keep it, let's divide it into "Catholic White antiracists in western Massachusetts" and "Protestant White antiracists in western Massachusetts" Mandsford 01:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The people in the removed content may or may not have been notable, but white Western Massachusetts antiracists is really, really not a notable intersection. Delete this page and let the individuals' pages stay or not on their own merits. Sci girl 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not bad faith, the nom is as i see it trying to avoid bad faith, by listing everything in both possible ways, to see if either the individual or the group articles will hold. I think the group article is absolutely absurd, as being constructed on an irrational basis. If the bios are notable, they will stand on their own.If anyone thinks one is, it's up there to be individually supported.  DGG (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2007 (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.