Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iamhere (social 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. ✗ plicit  01:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Iamhere (social movement)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is advocacy. Although for a worthy cause, it's still advocacy The eferences are almsot entire based on the organization's interviews or PRs. (It might be hard to do anything else, as there seem to be no actual accomplishments)  DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I added it as a stub because it looked as if it was a growing movement worthy of documenting with relation to the counterspeech article (which could easily do with expansion - lots of sources there!). Owing to its nature, existing solely on social networks, there hasn't been a huge amount written about it elsewhere, but I have just hit on a few more sources (including an article in an academic journal) which I'll review and add later if worthwhile. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Extra work in the form of commentary on it now added. It's hard to know how to change the descriptive stuff without sounding like advocacy - it's about what its aims are and what it does... I don't know how you measure "accomplishments" of a group like this, but some of the new sources have examined its role. And there are a few articles about comparable social movements in Wikipedia already. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: (weak but swayed by (Szakács & Judit 2021) added since nom.)  Bateman's 2019 article for the BBC, referenced from some of the other sources, includes interview but Bateman is careful to attribute claims to the interview where necessary.  Johansson & Scaramuzzino  (2021), also added since nom,, significantly studies the organisation.  I do have concern over some content inappropriately sourced against primary sources and some sections probably require re-write. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article needs some clean up. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Djm-leighpark. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Djm-leighpark. Entirely possible there's still work to do, but that's different from whether we should have an article or not. /Julle (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - AfD is not a clean-up tool. This meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2021 (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.