Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 6 Youth Movement


 * 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. Notability seems established and the article can be rewritten to address concerns about its focus. Canley (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

April 6 Youth Movement

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is not notable and has had a notability warning tag since January. Stub contains a single sentence and does not provide information about the actual movement other than the very basic top layer of it. Article has no backlinks (other than a bot's log archive) and has a single source.

Article does not recite why it is notable nor why the reason for the movement was notable.

A number of users joining a Facebook group can hardly be considered a reason for notability as users joining a Facebook group don't necessarily support the group's ideals. Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: the reference from the New York Times is quite a good one, and would normally be enough to assert notability for any group. --  role player 23:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Roleplayer, that's more than enough to establish notability. There are thousands of Facebook groups, but very few are mentioned anywhere outside of blogs or Facebook pages. §FreeRangeFrog 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with Alpha. It seems like the main focus of the article is to explain what/who the FaceBook group is, when (assuming by the title) it should be more about the movement itself (why the strike is occuring, etc). Phaux&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A Facebook group that got the attention of the New York Times doesn't have a notability problem. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a better idea to cover the protest and mention the group. I don't see how we can expand an article on the group without focusing on the protest. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From reading the NYT article, I don't think it is as possible to separate the two subjects as you are suggesting. It would appear from a cursory glance that the facebook group is the protest. --  role player 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is getting coverage in reliable sources. This may be back at AfD on April 7, but until then its notability is sourced and growing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the group itself has been getting wide coverage in mainstream media, distinct from the strike movement which they support: just added three more refs. MuffledThud (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2009 (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.