Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illridewithyou


 * 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   merge to 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. A redirect to the merge target should be created after the content is merged. NorthAmerica1000 04:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Illridewithyou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the hashtag was a response to a specific event, and is appropriately covered in the article about that event. It is not sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge content. I created this page title as a redirect to the event which spawned this hashtag. I believe the topic is worthy of discussion within the concept of that article, but that it has no "independent" merit. The content of this article should be merged back in to the main article and this title redirected - as it was before. I suspect this article was created to push a POV as there are differing political interpretations about this hashtag in Australian media at the moment. Wittylama 01:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - although an apparent peripheral event surrounding an event that was over-covered by media, and social media, the actual context of a twitter controversy about ethnic relations in Australia is sufficiently stand alone as a subject, in view of the phenomenon of the political and social tensions that surround inter-religious and inter-ethnic relations in the larger cities. satusuro 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - in view of various comments on this page satusuro 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * comment - this is nothing to do with the response below... satusuro 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing preventing the inclusion of the hashtag in relevant articles, though it is not necessarily appropriate to do so as generic unsourced social commentary. Controversy about ethnic relations in Australia may indeed warrant its own article, but this article should not be used as a coatrack for that purpose. Feel free to improve articles such as racism in Australia and racial violence in Australia.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Quick google news search brings up multiple articles about the hashtag itself, including an Al Jazeera article. ZappyGun  (talk to me)  What I've done for Wikipedia  01:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and unblock article creator - Given the inaccurate reporting of the chocolate shop hostage situation, it is important to include this hashtag, which proves that it was not generally regarded as terrorism. The creator of this article, TheAlmighteyDrill, did nothing wrong here, and if he did accidentally break the BLP, it was certainly not done maliciously, as it was quoting an accurate newspaper source.  All he was doing was trying to make this as accurate as possible. KrampusC (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to keep this article merely because it is believed that another article is inaccurately reporting something (which would make this a POV fork). There are currently concerns with the main article regarding breaches of WP:LABEL with respect to calling the event 'terrorism' in the absence of strong expert sources calling it such, but that is not a basis for independent notability of the subject of this article. (I wasn't aware the editor who substantially edited this article had been blocked, but it is completely irrelevant here. An AfD discussion cannot make a judgement on unblocking an editor. If the editor wishes to be unblocked, they will need to follow the separate request process.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor was blocked for an edit on this article, so I would think it was relevant. I am sure that there is some policy somewhere about blocking someone for creating an article then putting that article up for AFD straight afterwards. KrampusC (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've told you twice, the editor was blocked primarily for another, more serious, BLP violation. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you told me twice, there is no need to tell me a third time. It comes across as rather aggressive and heavy handed.  And since you are referring to something that I can't see, I am only going to refer to things that I can see, and that this does not seem to be a BLP violation. KrampusC (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware the editor (who technically was not the creator of the article, but who I later learned was the substantial contributor) had been blocked when I submitted the AfD. The fact that the editor was blocked has no bearing on the reasons already indicated for recommending deletion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect into 2014 Sydney Hostage Crisis as was its original state, or Delete fails WP:NEWS but sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in that article for the positive responses. Gnangarra 02:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Sydney siege page Are there any other individually significant hashtags?  It's not yet Take Back the Night.  This could be useful as a pointer to the main Sydney siege page, as part of the community response, but I don't know that it's significant in its own right.  Time will tell.  --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've included discussion of this article, of the article's creator being blocked, and this AFD, in the BLP noticeboard here: Please look at the discussion there, as it relates to this AFD nomination, and whether the AFD nomination was made in good faith. KrampusC (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * since this discussion started at Talk:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis a couple of hours earlier and some suggestions there by other editors warranted a formal discussion. If you going to throw AGF around please at least include the whole timeline of events. Gnangarra 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he is to immediately withdraw his false accusation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You, sir, need to calm down, and stop with the false accusations!!! I have tried to be civil with you but you are being incredibly nasty towards me.  I have nothing to apologise for, because I did not make any false accusation.  I said that you did not seem to have genuinely made this AFD, as it would seem to me that it was based around the person being banned, which, from what I can see, was done rashly based on an inaccurate appraisal of something being a violation of BLP, when it was in fact just 1 word different to an exact quote, which is nowhere near an actual BLP violation.  I am sure that anyone following this would agree that I have been more than kind with you.  I wrote on your talk page, and I have been very considerate.  You need to stop with the attitude.  Questioning what is going on is not the same thing as a false accusation.  You need to learn the difference and stop assuming bad faith.  Thank you. KrampusC (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not helping yourself - "it relates to this AFD nomination, and whether the AFD nomination was made in good faith" - is easy to understand. We know what you meant. We're not idiots. Posing a personal attack as a question doesn't make it less of a personal attack.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It has already been explained to KrampusC&mdash;repeatedly&mdash;that the other editor was blocked (not banned) for edits on the Talk page of another article. I will state it again as simply as I can: The nomination of this article has nothing to do with the editor, User:The Almightey Drill. When I submitted the AfD, I a) didn't know the other editor had been blocked, and b) didn't know he had edited this page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - (I'd almost be inclined to delete). The fact that the original creator is blocked is irrelevant. The article shouldn't have been created and it doesn't look like any amount of argument on his part would convince editors otherwise. Like everyone, he would only get one !vote. Of course the nomination was in good faith and if there is some suggestion it wasn't, I'd be happy to close this and restart a second for the sake of bureaucracy (which will undoubtedly produce the same result). This was a minor (made up) part of a broader news story and can easily be covered with a line or two there. If it's kept, the fact that the genesis story was (at least in part) invented should be included, but "fabricated" is a clear misreading of the sources and (in the context) a BLP violation.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - No independent notability on its own without standing on the notability of the Sydney siege event, this is better off as a subsection within the siege article. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and remerge - the Illridewithyou movement is likely to be a short term entity and doesn't yet deserve a page of its own. It is noteworthy, so should be mentioned on the siege page. If it takes off and gains followers, that will be the time to start its own page. Akld guy (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable in encyclopedic terms -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  17:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (NB This editor is a blocked sockpuppet - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC))
 * I've struck the !vote accordingly. ansh666 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect per above; it's a very valid search term. ansh666 20:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect with 2014 Sydney hostage crisis or relevant to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis articles. The event is so far short lived and therefore doesn't deserve a standalone article about it.--Mishae (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect I know that Google hits are not deemed a good measure of notability, but 1.44 million of them is far more than many/most articles. - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The main aspect of the hostage crisis that was raised in the news was whether or not it was terrorism, and the fears that it would lead to race-related rioting, as happened in the Cronulla riots. This hashtag seems to have calmed down any thought of race-related rioting, and there were no anti-Islam attacks as a result, while otherwise there might have been.  This is probably why it got over 1 million Google hits.  In many ways, this hashtag was more important than the hostage crisis itself, at least for people in Australia. KrampusC (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a single part of that preposterous claim is verifiable. You are welcome to a personal opinion about such things but inventing a potential threat of race riots (based on completely unrelated and disparate racial tensions a decade earlier) and claiming that this flash-in-the-pan Twitter hashtag prevented said fictional threat from eventuating is just ridiculous. That's like claiming I cured cancer by re-tweeting the Cancer Council's Christmas message.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that "this hashtag was more important than the hostage crisis itself" is spurious and, at the very least, debatable. The claim that the hashtag prevented riots is entirely unfounded. Correlation does not imply causation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect with 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Unlike NotAllMen and YesAllWomen, which were created due to a controversy that has been long prevalent even before the 2014 Isla Vista killings (which were popularly assumed to be sparked by misogyny) started, Illridewithyou is more just synonymous with the Sydney siege, which sparked this hashtag. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Convert to redirect This topic fails WP:NOTNEWS. The article on the crisis already has a probably over-long section on the issue, so I don't think that anything should be merged. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, it's just a hashtag. It is a valid search term though. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:56, 28 December 2014 (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.