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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfroCrowd[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, not typical that WikiProjects, which this initiative is not productive enough to be considered one anyway, have pages. Page is underdeveloped, not ready for mainspace, and does not have any supporting citations that aren't pure publicity. Additionally, metrics and leadership edit count are not significant in comparison to other initiatives, which weakens argument to support Wikipedia article on subject. BrillLyle (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—passes WP:GNG based on a survey of the available sources. As a new article, only created hours ago, we should give this topic a bit of space to develop before immediately bringing the article to this forum. Imzadi 1979 → 17:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If article isn't fully developed, it should not be on Wikipedia. If anything it is a hasty push of the article onto the mainspace before it is ready. Most articles with this little information and notability are speedy deleted. BrillLyle (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article does not need to be fully developed to exist at Wikipedia... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's actually debatable. To have this article so underdeveloped does a disservice to the subject of the article. I have a first-hand understanding of this initiative, similar to Art+Feminism. I actually maintained and created their namespace and collected their press and converted that press into citations. The information is there to create an adequate article but the work has not been done and so this has been pushed to the mainspace too soon. The issue of notability, however, is more problematic. Why should this initiative have an entry when it is debatable whether it is an impactful, effective initiative. It veers on fluffery / puffery if it is not supported by metrics and proven successes that are impactful beyond press. BrillLyle (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Err... I don't see how a few sentences is "fluttery / puffery", and you just suggested "The information is there to create an adequate article". So... case closed? Let's work to expand and not delete this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it is an extremely short article, but it is thoroughly sourced and is therefore a net positive to the encyclopedia. Appears to pass the notability guideline. CJK09 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was added to the article, so I removed and copied the comment here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my dumb newbie mistake. I accidentally clicked on the "edit" button under the article name on this page. CJK09 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Just wanted to note my edit here to avoid confusion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I will also note my preference to keep the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the potential sources currently included as "Further reading", the initiative appears to satisfy WP:GNG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MShabazz. Sources appear sufficient for the subject to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 20:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took a pass at incorporating a few sentences from the reading list. Far from perfect, but every little bit helps. Ckoerner (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.