Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Obvious bad faith, disruptive renomination. The basis that the previous discussion is not legitimate due to admin abuse is not a valid reason to renominate. Good faith concerns over whether a closer got a consensus wrong should be taken to WP:DRV, however based on the user's conduct (for which they are now blocked), it's clear that this is not the case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black supremacy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions or not addressing the topic at all. The article was last nominated for deletion in July 2018. In that AFD, the closing admin User:Sandstein was merely going by hand count rather than arguments based on policy. I ask that they recuse themselves from closing this AFD and leave it to another, preferably an admin capable of judging arguments based on policy and not hand count. There is an intense discussion going on the talk page. The possibility of merging some content to Black separatism was discussed, but consensus was not reached by the participants, and understandably so, because the two subjects are totally different, and whilst Black separatism is notable with significant coverage discussing the subject in detail, Black supremacy is not. Other the the SPLC, there is little indepth coverage of the subject. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What has changed since the last time you posted this for AFD? PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails GNG and SIGCOV. Never notable to begin with and you knew it despite your reverts, yet not participating in the discussion. If you believe it meets our notability guidlines, prove it with respect to policy. I'm waiting. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted once to stop your edit warring. If nothing has changed since the last one I do not see a reason for this AFD in general. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would likely lean "delete" on this article. However, given the backhanded personal attack in this nomination which was part Senegambianamestudy's larger string of personal attacks (which lead to their being blocked indefinitely and TPA revoked) I believe that this AfD be closed as a procedural keep due to a bad faith nomination. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2020 (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.