Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Je suis Charlie


 * 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. This discussion is closed early because there is no chance that it will reach a consensus to delete or even merge the article.

Although this deletion discussion is not a vote, the count of opinions currently stands at 74 keep, 24 merge and 14 delete opinions. Under these extraordinarily clear circumstances, an admin could close the discussion with a "delete" outcome only if mandatory reasons for deletion (such as copyright violations) had been advanced. That is not the case; this is rather a discussion about the notability of the slogan independently from the related event, about which people may disagree in good faith. In such cases, the closing admin has very limited leeway to weigh arguments in favor of the one or the other side. Moreover, given the ongoing coverage of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and its consequences, it is unlikely that media interest in the slogan will diminish and that this will cause a significant number of editors to change their minds and advocate deletion.

Because of this, I conclude that there is at this time a solid consensus to keep the article based on what is perceived as its independent notability. This does not preclude later merger proposals and discussions on the article talk page.  Sandstein  20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Je suis Charlie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:RECENTISM gone mad. Whatever content at this article that is notable belongs at the Charlie Hebdo shooting article. We don't need two articles on what is essentially the same subject. We certainly don't need a compilation of the various people that used this slogan. That strikes me as a form of advocacy. Since my unilateral merge was reversed, I believe that AfD is the only way forward. What's more, it fails WP:NEO. I'm not saying that the slogan itself is not notable in the context of the shooting, because it is, but it isn't notable on its own, and is not suitable for a standalone article. It also contains a large amount of WP:Original research about "free speech". RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Against Deletion. In my opinion it's worthy because it's not just general "#rip" sympathy for the victims, but it seems to be a worldwide motto that is representing support for free speech and condemnation for threats by extremists. A comparable article would be Hands up, don't shoot. Wikimandia (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it pass WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for WP:ADVOCACY of "free speech". "Hands up, don't shoot" has been around enough to be discussed in secondary sources, and also pertains to multiple events. This is a slogan for one event that happened today. Its notability has not been established, independent of the shooting. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article is biased toward advocacy, then it should be edited to make it more neutral. If it quickly fades away then I would agree it should be merged into the original article, but for now it is not hurting anything to leave it. Wikimandia (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is harming Wikipedia, because it is an example of what Wikipedia is not. That's not how it works. If an article doesn't belong, it doesn't belong. WP:RECENTISM is wrong, as we are not a newspaper or a blog, and we are certainly not a dictionary of random political slogans either. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not harming Wikipedia. Lulz. This is not a "dictionary" type entry and the recentism page is not "anti-recentism". From the WP:Recentism page: Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer. Keep for one month and then revisit. Wikimandia (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the world in reverse. First show notability, then create an article (or !vote keep). --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are multiple independent sources that discuss Je suis Charlie, GNG is not an obstacle here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC).


 * There are, but they do not discuss it independently of the shooting itself. Most of them are commentary pieces that are not usable as RS. Please note the "presumed" bit of the GNG.  RGloucester  — ☎ 23:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't take the reasons behind this proposed deletion very seriously. A lot of talk about WP:Recentism but really it has already become massive with countless sources and discussion. If we want to take WP:Recentism seriously then maybe we should delete Charlie Hebdo shooting? Also the WP:NEO argument is even poorer, no way is this a dictionary entry! And by having an article we are not advocating it, just like we are not advocating Islam. Also the comments suggest that at the very least a merge would be more appropriate than deletion. I think what needs to be discussed is how it relates to WP:GNG, which for me it passes with flying colors. --Mrjulesd (talk)  12:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  21:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * With events less than a day old, it is presently impossible to determine if this slogan will endure beyond the current events. It certainly has the potential to become an enduring slogan and enter the public lexicon.  I would wait a month before making a decision on keeping or deleting, and then reassess at that point. 129.98.230.131 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I have the "Je suis Charlie" image on my userpage, but that is another matter. At this point, it is impossible to say whether "I am Charlie" will have any lasting impact. The Paris attack is barely 12 hours ago, creating this article is absolutely premature. We have wikinews for current events, WP is not a newspaper. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment A good amount of the "information" on this article was copied from the Charlie Hebdo shooting article itself. Unless we can get more substantial, original information for the hashtag, I am in support of deletion. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it belongs in the shootings article. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Against Deletion This movement has proven to be a global phenomenon, as a movement all its own. The cause's message is not exclusive to the shooting concerned; it's the message that free expression is essential in western democracy, and subsequently deserves its own article. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the slogan peters out and is not repeated five days from now then it would be difficult to regard it as a "movement" or a "global phenomenon." 129.98.230.131 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that a "phenomenon" or "movement" has managed to come together in less than a day. That's called WP:CRYSTAL, something we're not. Anyway, I don't see any sources for this "free speech" nonsense. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That you don't believe something can be a movement or phenomenon in less than a day is simply your opinion. And again, WP:CRYSTAL does not support that argument. That would relevant only if Curlymanjaro had said it WOULD grow to be a phenomenon. Wikimandia (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete and redirect to shootings article. Please think about what serves our readers best -- having a separate article on the slogan arising out of those rightfully protesting this atrocity doesn't make sense to our readership.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Against Deletion for Now  Ditto what Curlyman said. I added some info from an article that was slightly critical of the hashtag and Twitter activism in general. This offers a secondary perspective of the movement. The article is only a few hours old and more will be added. Then it can be properly evaluated. Wikimandia (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it is not impossible that in the fullness of time this may be a legitimate merge target, either to the main page about the shooting, or a detail page about the resultant social events, but right now the Je suis Charlie slogan/hashtag/meme appears to be a significant entity worthy of it's own article. The discussions above point out quite correctly that Je suis Charlie speaks to more than the shooting of 7 January, expressing support for the fundamental ideals of free speech, which is not to be gainsaid by violence and threat of violence.  Je suis Charlie is subject of independent discussion, and relates to other social movements against violence, such as Draw Mohammed Day, and Not In My Name.  It is also part of the social media activist landscape of the current decade.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep Per Rich Farmbrough. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete Cultural impact cannot be defined at this stage. Add it to the incident's article, and as the landscape develops either split it back into here (once it's stood the test of a few weeks/remains notable) or phase out coverage. Gigitrix (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep In my mind RGloucster's nomination is just as guilty of recentism. This is a genuine article sourced extensively about an important issue that is more than just about one terrorist attack.  I believe that any votes above which just name policies (e.g. according to BLAH...) should be discounted.  If you think it should be kept then argue why.  If you think it should be deleted then argue your point.  Do not just name policies.  This policy naming garbage is one of the biggest reasons why few readers of Wikipedia become editors and why most editors quickly disappear after making a few edits.-- XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk &#124; talk 23:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this project is based on policy, not based on my or your personal opinion on this matter. If anything, we need more strict enforcement of policy, to stop incidents like this one from occurring. This is not the place for polemics, or for advocacy of ideas. This is an encylopaedia. It is impossible to determine whether this is an "important issue" without analysis in reliable scholarly sources, which we do not have on the day of this shooting. There is no notability independent of the incident, now, and hence this should be covered in that article, which is not even long. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree 100 percent with XANIA. Give specific reasons why and don't just point to policies that are 6,000 words and don't clearly support the argument. Wikimandia (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per RGloucester. Not independently notable enough to warrant its own article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge per nom. -- Ե րևանցի talk  23:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge for now. I don't like seeing hashtags get wikipedia pages on principle - we can merge the other ones too - and if something is notable enough as a hashtag campaign, focus should be placed on the off-twitter places the hashtag's users organized with the tag only used to provide evidence of the campaign's size and name, regardless of the amount of slow news days articles involved. If this becomes a lasting anti-censorship or anti-terrorism or islamophobic movement discussing more things than a single shooting or too big to contain in the prior article, it can be spun off later. Birdboy2000 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with Charlie Hebdo shooting - I would be alright with Keeping this, but I feel that it should be merged with the events that lead to the creation of the hashtag. We have several articles about hashtags, so I feel that an article about a hashtag can be made.  However, to cite a similar AfD discussion about an article on a hashtag, "(...) The information in this article is worth saving and augmenting, but a separate article is not necessary. (...)"  I feel that this article does not have enough to stand on its own, but it can help another article stand a bit stronger.  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - it's been less than 24 hours, too soon to say this hashtag isn't notable. Let's leave it a few days. If it dies down, this article should be merged into the main one on the shootings. If it continues to receive media attention over a longer period, a separate article can be justified. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be too soon to say whether this slogan *will become* notable, but it's right now it's obviously not. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to the attacks. The slogan is searchable, but it is specifically tied to the incident. If it does grow past that a week from now, then we can talk about a separate article, but right now it doesn't need it and overly duplicative of the attack article. --M ASEM  (t) 23:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I'm continuing to follow this hashtag and see if I can find any notability beyond the usual outrage/sympathy for the victims. I've found quite a few articles from journalists who are discussing its significance as "battle cry" against recent trends toward censorship and threats to free speech. I think that adds a secondary perspective beyond who changed their Twitter avatar, etc. Will add to the article. Wikimandia (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Voted already, see below. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for now for at least a month. Currently many protests under that slogan are rising, so IMO it's better to keep it alive for a while and then decide to merge it or not. Valentinmilev (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)  — Valentinmilev (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, or merge and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. The "Je suis Charlie" article says very little other than what's already in the article "Charlie Hebdo shooting" as well as some trivial mentions. The protests under that slogan are related wholly to these attacks. There is no "keep for now", it's either keep, delete, or merge. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Struck; see below. Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep What we don't need is this AFD as the nomination tells clearly that this was the result of a frustrated merger and so is improper per WP:SK. I agree that this is recentism as the whole thing is obviously breaking news but WP:NOTNEWS is obviously a dead letter as the topic was rushed onto the main page immediately.  Time will tell what aspects endure and we should just let the various strands develop without heavy-handed disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. I find the "wait a month to see if it's notable" arguments do not resonate with me. We shouldn't allow content that does not meet guidelines to have its own page while we wait for things to be sorted out. Merge for now, if it blows up, split it. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep For those of you who keep saying the article just has the same info as the Charlie Hebdo shooting page, please check it again. The article is now significantly longer and contains information that is not in the article on the attack. It includes perspectives embracing the slogan and also criticism. It's a work in progress naturally; I feel the parts about who (temporarily) changed their avatars etc should eventually be removed, as they don't have long-term meaning. Thank you. Wikimandia (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You voted already. Three times, in fact. I'm indenting all your comments except the first time you voted. Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine, sorry about that. My intention was not to vote multiple times. Wikimandia (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting --0x010C (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, as the article contains a number of RS that primarily discus the hashtag and surrounding issues (e.g. the efficacy of Twitter-activism), rather than focussing on the shooting itself and only mentioning the hashtag in passing.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  00:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I just saw a huge collage of magazine/newspaper front pages from around the world about the massacre. A few of the covers are just black with the white words, "Je Suis Charlie." There are also more and more photos of demonstrations with people holding the sign with the phrase. The notability seems quite clear and not just a Twitter fad. Wikimandia (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Photographs of people with Je suis Charlie inscribed on signs do not indicate notability. Please see WP:NEO. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw WP:NEO. Once again WP:Blaaaah. Nothing there that indicates it is not notable. Tens of thousands of people across the world marching and gathering holding identical signs with the same three words, and you don't think those three words are notable? Your opinion and a weak one. Wikimandia (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have policies. It is not my fault you are either refusing to read them, or cannot comprehend them. This is an encylopaedia. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * delete/merge for now. If it blows up, it blows up. But that would be WP:CRYSTAL. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It has already blown up big time. What are you talking about? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 02:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Masem. The phrase is a significant aspect of the reactions to the attack, and a completely plausible search term. I think it is best covered in the main article unless and until the term starts living a life of its own. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge. Article gives no rationale for notability other than having been referred to as a hashtag for solidarity. The Arabic Nun letter used for solidarity with persecuted Christians is only a section, but it at least has slightly different connotations than the hashtag, which has so far remained simply a hashtag. Simply mentioning it in a Reactions section should be enough. 93 07:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete There's hardly anything to say about this slogan at present other than that it exists. The entire article is just listing occurrences of the slogan. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * mergeShould be mentioned in the reaction section of the main page of the shootingLukasonny (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Recentism is just an essay, it's not a strong argument nor strong reason for deletion.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 08:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't delete but any other decision is OK by me. These things are better decided by editors dealing with the subject matter rather than by people at AFD. Thincat (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the article was created probably too soon, and not less nominated for deletion too soon. At least a dozen days would be helpful to clarify the real significance of the subject. I suspect it is notable, but now IMO it is quite soon to have a clear opinion too. At least it should merged and redirected, anyway, it is an obvious search term. Cavarrone  09:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait I think we ought to take a wait and see approach. If the phenomenon spreads globally over a sustained period, I think it'll warrant a separate article. However, if it tones down a bit, then a merge would be more appropriate. Right now I don't see any harm letting the separate article stand until a future course of action is decided. Lasersharp (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * strong support for wait  - time will tell as to whether the phenomenon remains notable and relevant over time - even a few days may or may not see the specific slogan/tag continue or dissapear like so many things do. The endurance of the specific movement of support for the issue/tragedy will be the telling, lets see what even a week might do to the issues arising from the tragedy satusuro 11:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * merge can be mention in two or three sentences at the other article. -Koppapa (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Charlie Hebdo shooting. At the moment, "Je suis Charlie" is covered in sources exclusively together with "Charlie Hebdo shooting", not on its own. This phenomenon is notable, and should be covered in Wikipedia, but in the "Charlie Hebdo shooting" article, not in a separate article. If, in the future, it becomes separately notable, a separate article should be (re-)created. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep/Wait - This is a social phenomenon which most likely has enough long-term notability to have its own article. - Anonimski (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The enormous MSM and activist coverage of this suggests that the tag is here to stay. Such one-offs as Ich bin ein Berliner and You're no Jack Kennedy have survived, and I think this is no different. We can always revisit this if we are shown by history to be mistaken. Ringbark (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Too soon to make a decision -- needs time to develop -- keep for now per the policy WP:PRESERVE. Micromanagement is a drag on innovation. -- Green  C  13:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and redirect to shootings article. It is just a slogan. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, as this is such a major incident that there is a strong possibility that the slogan 'je suis Charlie' will remain notable, and that at some future point younger readers might consult Wikipedia for an explanation of it. AlanD1956 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an enormous social media message which has gone more than just viral, and is definitely notable. Mrnetbean (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Mrnetbean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Whether or not the Je suis Charlie mantra becomes a campaign, it already merits inclusion as a social media phenomenon that has quite clearly gripped all of society in the immediate wake of this terrible atrocity. For that reason alone, it meets notability criteria by the bucket load. I'd just like to add that I think the decision to mark as speedy delete sticks in my craw as being incredibly insensitive to those who have lost loved ones in this attack. Mediavalia  talk 15:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - I am always an advocate of waiting on these type of things. It hurts nothing leaving this here for a month and seeing whether or not coverage continues. For now the article is certainly got enough coverage to hop over WP:GNG. We aren't psychics, we can't say this will not have continued coverage so to delete it now is just causing extra work for people if it does continue, and if it doesn't, then it can be deleted with out hassle (even better if this had never been nominated until some time had passed, so we could know at the AfD if it was actually long term. One thing I hate is people rushing things to AfD). This is especially right now a topic many will be googling, so having it on Wikipedia is good for the website (see the stats here).  JT dale Talk ~ 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Hear, hear! My sentiments entirely. Mediavalia  talk 15:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm changing my vote from 'for now' because this has gotten ridiculous. The popularity of this thing has exploded over night, and that has in my mind made it eternally notable. The enormous number of tweets is just one thing now. Demonstrations across the planet. The creation of cartoons by some of the worlds most notable cartoonists. The adding of this to some of the worlds most visited websites. Building it into the WHOIS of french websites. Reports from every possible conceivable newspaper and news program. The New York Times, the Herald Sun, Washington Post, the London Times, Times of India, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, CNN. If if is a news publication today, it has reported on this.  JT dale Talk ~ 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and wait. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It's time to close this one down if we're to believe that #JeSuisCharlie has become one of the most popular hashtags in Twitter's history. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable already and likely to be notable in the future as a slogan in future events. Alaney2k (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, as Alaney stated. Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, because is has become a world thing now. Lotje (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep — the chief complaint is that it's a duplicate of the Charlie Hebdo shooting article. It's not. The phrase itself has become a phenomenon. Happy   monsoon  day   16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic was not so notable when the article was first created, but it definitely is now. CodeCat (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - By itself it's a non-notable meme. It needs to go in the shooting article.--WaltCip (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge any relevant information with the main article on the shootings. (Alternatively, I would support the creation of an article about the international reaction to the shootings.) This is nothing more than a 'hashtag' created in response to an important event, with no apparent significance of its own. How will this slogan/image have any significant impact?-RHM22 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * keep, having waited to see the developments, I believe the slogan and associations with it have easily crossed the threshold of notability. The body of explanation required would be too long for the shootings page.  Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * keep - It seems clear that this has already become notable. EastTN (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable phrase for the defense of free speech, while their messages are not identical, their social media use could be compared to #illridewithyou, but x3 in usage. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what your rationale is for making the comparison, but 'illridewithyou' is currently nestled in the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis article, as part of the 'Reactions' section.-RHM22 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My rationale is that it is like #illridewithyou, but is 5x more famous and has 5x the coverage, therefore, while both are hashtags (#illridewithyou and #jesuischarlie), it looks that #jesuischarlie is notable, and #illridewithyou is not. I hope that makes sense. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 18:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes; I don't necessarily agree with that rationale, but I understand what you mean.-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I voted delete yesterday, but it is apparent that there will be no consensus to delete.  I recommend an admin speedy close this as hopelessly no-consensus for the time being.  It doesn't make sense to have deletion tags on the article when things are too heated.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be speedily closed per WP:SK, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". If it's left open, then it should be closed as Keep as the notability of the topic is extensive.  Here's a selection of headlines:
 * "Thousands chant 'je suis Charlie' at Fed Square" — The Age
 * "'Je suis Charlie' goes global" — Al Jazeera
 * "Je suis Charlie! The cry of defiance" — Daily Mail
 * "'Je suis Charlie' trends as people refuse to be silenced by Charlie Hebdo gunmen" — Daily Mirror
 * "Vigils across Europe declare 'We are Charlie'" — Financial Times
 * "Stand up for press freedom by wearing a 'Je suis Charlie' T-shirt" — The Guardian
 * "#JeSuisCharlie hashtag used across the world to show solidarity with Charlie Hebdo shooting victims" — The Independent
 * "#JeSuisCharlie Social media shows support for satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo" — Metro
 * "‘Je Suis Charlie’ message unites the globe after Paris attack" — New York Post
 * "'Je Suis Charlie' Message Goes Viral After Paris Attack" — New York Times
 * Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't come close to being a speedy keep. There's nothing to suggest that RGloucester created this to solve a dispute, and even if he had, this would probably still be a a valid AfD anyway. That said, this will probably be closed without consensus, based on its current state.-RHM22 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination tells us plainly that the AFD was started, "since my unilateral merge was reversed". The nominator failed to discuss the matter at the article's talk page and didn't start a proper merge request per WP:MERGE.  Instead he rushes over here to get the page deleted when he doesn't get his way - a blatant abuse of process contrary to WP:SK, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:BEFORE, &c.  The nominator has form as Jimbo had to step in to revert another blatant abuse of process recently. Andrew D. (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator was explaining that first he did a unilateral merge, then seeing that there was not a clear consensus opened a discussion instead. Both the merge and nomination were for the same reasons, which he outlines in his comment. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. This topic is related to the shooting, and belongs as a properly written section within that article rather than a bloated and unnecessary child article. Resolute 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Charlie Hebdo shooting page is 113K and seems far more bloated than the page in question, which is just 14K. Per WP:SIZE, this page is fine and it's the other one which needs attention. Andrew D. (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge: to Charlie Hebdo shooting there will obviously be public demonstrations over this sort of tragedies, having a hashtag associated with it is not particularly notable. Maybe if there were an article called "Reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting" it would get a bigger mention. Loganmac (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That may actually be a good compromise solution, since one key objection raised to this article's existence is that it doesn't exist as a standalone topic. Assuming there's enough material for two articles, the "X" / "Reactions to X" distinction is far more reasonable (and has better precedent) than "X" / "Some Twitter slogan about X". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * keep or merge O750aa (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — O750aa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete: Agree with nominator. The main article (Charlie Hebdo shooting) is sufficient to deal with the topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Encyclopedias do not have entire articles about such slogans. A section in the Charlie Hebdo shooting article is enough. Else articles on all other kinds of slogans (e.g. "I am Malala") may also crop up. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As has been noted, there is an article on Hands up, don't shoot. That would seem to be an appropriate precedent for this one. EastTN (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Gérald Garitan (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are also supposed to give a concrete reason. This is a discussion, not voting. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep there is a wikipage for Ich bin ein Berliner. Je suis Charlie is of equivalent magnitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaDare1587 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)  — VirginiaDare1587 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, or merge: A sourceable phrase that is a likely search term. p  b  p  21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reason that opponents of the statement would claim victory if the article were deleted. -Mardus (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

*Keep, for the reason that the subject stands alone. -markS (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.128.228 (talk)
 * Keep: Je suis Charlie is a separate subject/topic from `Charlie Hebdo'. It stands alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.128.228 (talk • contribs)  — 188.221.128.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Repeat vote struck. p  b  p  22:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The phrase might be forgotten in the future, that's true: it is precisely the role of an encyclopedia to keep such an information. Sapphorain (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep /Wait  A clear case of a premature article followed by a premature deletion proposal. It may develop into something just as notable as "Ich bin ein Berliner".. or it may not. Time will tell. Anyway, given the events in Vincennes and Dammartin of January 9th, I very much doubt that "Je suis Charlie" will ever be considered as just a temporary buzz, as this has become the slogan symbolising the united response of French people (and others) to the worst terrorist attack in France in more than half a century.. --Azurfrog (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Developing? Hafspajen (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hafspajen, definitely developping, with a recognition now far exceeding the French borders. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Event recent, this slogan is clearly a symbol of this historical moment and of the emotion shared in the whole world. It should have its own article for being a symbol of the freedom of speech and not only a reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Pymouss Let's talk  23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into Charlie Hebdo shooting. This topic only makes sense as part of that event. There's no need to have a separate article on it. It is also not Wikipedia's purpose to right great wrongs or serve as a platform for protests. There is no indication that this phrase will be anything other than a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. Modest Genius talk 00:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Usually I am against these sorts of articles, but one really cannot deny that the phrase itself is the subject of direct, focused commentary in reliable sources, as shown by others above. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge or delete there really hasn't been any time to establish any significance of this phrase as anything other than a small part of the attacks. Unless this phrase becomes something referred back to, or needs extensive coverage, it doesn't need to be an article.  H a l f   Hat  01:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG as others have stated.  D r e a m Focus  01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep passes notability test as a phrase that has been reported around the world in all reliable media sources.Cathar66 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a widely used phrase that our readers will want information about. It passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for the present. Plainly this is notable, but there are reasonable arguments on both sides, particularly that it should be part of the article on the shootings. But deleting it now could send a confused message about "Whether Wikipedia cares". Imaginatorium (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge This is notable enough to be included in the article on the attacks, but not currently notable enough for its own article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability indicated by sources. Everyking (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep probably one of the most important events of 2015 alongside the notability of the phrase that has united the western world. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 07:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Why bother removing? It's not harming anything and is an important phrase in the world right now. And, it contains unique information that the Charlie Hebdo article doesn't contain. 07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.20.198 (talk)  — 95.141.20.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep for now -- attempting to merge it into the Charlie Hebdo shooting article resulted in vastly too much of the article being devoted to the slogan, giving it disproportionate emphasis and detracting from the coverage of the main subject of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea would be to trim out a lot of the fluff when merging, condensing it to one or two paragraphs in a "Reactions" section. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, please. A lot of people encounter the slogan with no explanation, so "JE SUIS CHARLIE" is what they're going to put in the search box. I would say "If not keep, definitely merge into and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting", but The Anome, above, makes a good point about such a merge tilting the article too far off balance. ←Ben Culture (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a double entry with Charlie Hebdo Shooting, it is a symbol emerged as a result of this shooting and expressing the freedom of speech whether you like Charlie Hebdo or not, it means I'm free to speak.FromSpace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily enough WP:GNG for its own standalone article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a social media phenomenon and deserves its own entry. It's also useful. I'm a professor of Digital Culture and was just called by a journalist wondering about the origin of #jesuischarlie. I was very happy to find such a thorough Wikipedia entry about it, complete with links to media interviews (in French, so not immediately very accessible to a Norwegian journalist) with the originator of the slogan. This is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia documents well, and deleting it would be outrageous. Lijil (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no question (based on the usual benchmark of multiple non-trivial sources) that this slogan is notable in its own right and, per many arguments above, merging in back to main article on the shooting would lead to that article (itself still subject to regular updates as events unfold) having to devote too much space to the slogan and thus becoming somewhat unbalanced. Possibly in the future, when this becomes history, one long article with "Je Suis Charlie" on a redirect will suffice but for now it makes sense to maintain separate articles, if only to prevent the one from distracting from the other. A1octopus (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I can understand why this was nominated originally, but in the time since, this has certainly become a notable subject. The main article is bloated as hell as is, and this is a very good subject to cut down on some of the content over there. Far from redundant and definitely not a duplicate, I think this article will only continue to get even more notable in the coming weeks. Regardless of whether or not that happens, it is plenty notable now. Sock   ( tock talk)  12:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have been asked several times what the meaning of it is, and Wikipedia is a good instrument to satisfy the need for interested readers. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge At the moment this is not notable outside of the context of the shootings themselves and currently remains a reactions from the masses to them. I see a strong connection between the 2 topics and having a section inside the shootings article itself seems best to me.  CaptRik (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I was googling what does it mean and this article has given me the answer. Think about the reader. Merged somewhere would not help so much as it would be more hidden. Wikipedia, don't take your "notability" so seriously. It's often counter-productive. I was often searching for something and found that it has been deleted from Wikipedia. --109.81.209.190 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's now obviously an important meme in its own right, and is being copied elsewhere (see Hypercacher). Ericoides (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is important to let peoples to remember and understand what "Je suis Charlie" means, it is a historical event now, although the content can be re-written.  183.178.222.138 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear that this page is being used for advocacy by "free speech" advocates. Wikipedia is not WP:SOAPbox for advocacy. I see a lot of emotion in "Keep" voters, but an encyclopaedia is no place for emotion. The integrity of the encyclopaedia has been compromised. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I !voted to delete, stop with the air quotes around free speech. You're coming across as quite insulting, and on top of that, saying that the integrity of the encyclopedia is compromised is over-dramatic.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what an "air quote" is. I believe I used what are known as "inverted commas", which are used when one is quoting the words of others, as I was doing here. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with RGloucester here. What does any of that have to do with Wikipedia? We cover notable people, things and events, not things that are nice or that we agree with. Besides, this slogan would still be covered in the article, or (preferably to me) in a 'reactions' article.-RHM22 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want to prove it is notable? It has been reported about by nearly every newspaper on Earth. It has been added to some of the worlds largest websites, built into the structure of French WHOIS, used as a slogan by thousands in physical protests, tweeted 3.4 million times. If this isn't notable, what is?  JT dale Talk ~ 01:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it was "not notable". I said that it was not notable apart from the shootings themselves, as an independent object, and hence should be covered in that article. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with WaltCip on the Scare quotes. It easily comes across as condescending, and whether it is as per intention is irrelevant to the fact that it should not belong in a civilized discussion. xertnevnI (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is more beneficial to the other page to have this text on a separate page so it doesn't detract from the article about the event itself.  There seems to be enough reliable sources to indicate that the slogan itself is notable. Posts on this page by others have indicated that they have already found the Je Suis Charlie page useful as a place for information. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for Now. There is potential that this will blow over quickly, in which case merging with the Charlie Hebdo Shooting may make good sense, but as the term is being frequently trended and searched right now, we should keep the wiki up for those who will reference it from a web search. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Obviously notable phrase. jni (delete)<sub style="margin-left:-7.5ex;">...just not interested 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a notable protest movement in itself nor a wider campaign on press freedom, but solely part of the international reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. It should be merged back into the page for that shooting. Zcbeaton (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a notable protest movement... This may not be a protest movement, but this is something that is noted by EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THIS PLANET! . Maybe not by a newspaper run by Boko Harem, but everybody else has covered this meme. Really everyone running a newspaper, in every country! How much more notability do you want? WP:GNG clearly states that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Your vote is also self-contradicting, because you bolded the "Delete" word, but then supported merging instead (and this forum is really not for resolving disputed merges.) jni (delete)<sub style="margin-left:-7.5ex;">...just not interested 22:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep dank article 79.67.253.38 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Internet slang, it means "awesome article". <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  23:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete If we have an article about this, surely we should also have something about #illridewithyou, which we don't. Moaz786 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I've now seen a number of articles that make the case that the "Je suis Charlie" sentiment is wrong - that while the killings should be condemned, the media shouldn't identify itself with those who provoke for the sake of provocation. (The NYTimes has a summary of the debate here: ) I think that the debate over the "Je suis Charlie" slogan shows that there's more than enough coverage of the "Je suis Charlie" slogan and movement itself to justify an article.GabrielF (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As for me it would be better to keep the article. Because due to IT and information spread nowadays "Je suis Charlie" motto tends to become some kind of a historical act. I will not be surprised if someday people over the world would search it separately from the main event it belongs to. Lara Rusnak, 10 January 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely a redirect would do fine for that. H a l f   Hat  02:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - It seems to me that the term has got a pretty significant amount coverage. Enough that it would seem to pass WP:GNG. I do think the WP:RECENTISM argument carries some weight, but probably not enough to override the notability argument. And finally, an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; we do have a number of similar articles covering famous phrases (e.g. Hands up, don't shoot, The lady's not for turning). NickCT (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – In the time that this AfD has opened, this has gained enough notability and news coverage on its own. Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Now covered in depth, the article passes notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and trout for the nominator. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Such an obvious keep. This saying isn't going anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.36.40 (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)  — 96.48.36.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep or Merge. Even if this slogan should disappear from media in a few weeks, it has still had a significant impact and coverage during the CHS to be mentioned somewhere in the WP. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  10:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - A number of people have made statements like "This is not a notable protest movement in itself nor a wider campaign on press freedom..." I came to the page because the slogan is all over Flickr. There are definitely more than 1,000 photos tagged with "JeSuisCharlie". That's a lot. See https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=jesuischarlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony999 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)  — Tony999 (talk
 * Keep else wait I think it is already apparent that Je Suis Charlie has taken a life of its own, far bigger than the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and has become a strong statement in favor of freedom of speech. If people are not yet convinced then perhaps we should wait, but for me it already passes WP:GNG. --<span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive; color:blue;">Mrjulesd <span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive; color:orange;">(talk)  11:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge: to Terrorism, along with Boston Strong, into a new Anti-Terrorism Slogans sub-section under Responses. No matter how many times this slogan is displayed or recited, senseless murderers will not find a clue.
 * Keep It has certainly become very notable indeed. The sheer number of responses here alone show how well known it is.Jeppiz (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep RGloucester, I'd recommend you to take a breather and just accept that many Wikipedia policies go out the window with these types of slogans. Don't lose any sleep over it and just allow the exceptions. The article doesn't need any reason for inclusion other than the fact that it's a popular slogan. It's an easy vote for keep. It's catchy, it's cool, and people like it. Forget WP:NPOV, WP:Crystal, WP:Election, WP:Recentism, WP:Advocacy, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There's simply no need to follow any encyclopedic guidelines when this many people overwhelmingly vote for inclusion. It stays and that's it. Zup326 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote. The results of AfDs are based on policy-based arguments, not simple votes and rationales of "it's cool". -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why give this one person a hard time? The delete votes aren't "policy-based arguments" either, so why aren't you lecturing them? Everyking (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I commented on this user's !vote because they we're trying to lecture others. And by the way, I want the article kept too. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre !vote. Zup326 seems to suggest that the article shouldn't be kept per policy, essentially agreeing with the rationale for deletion, but the !vote is a 'strong keep' because many people want to keep it? AmaryllisGardener is right to point out the flaws in that !vote, if for no other reason than to inform new editors that things like that aren't taken into consideration in an AfD.-RHM22 (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know what is also policy? WP:IAR.  JT <sub style="color:grey;">dale Talk ~ 04:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't trying to lecture anyone, if it came across that way. I merely addressed RGloucester because I like what he brings to the table. He's a nice guy who brings a lot of fair ideas to discussions. I only meant to provide an alternative viewpoint for him to consider this time around. I wish the best for him and hope he remains in high spirits regardless of the result here. All the best. Zup326 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * keep Per others--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ridiculous nomination and ridiculous discussion, even the nom seems to want to keep both the content and the name as a redirect, and we seem to have strong consensus that both should be kept. So that's a merge, not a deletion, and always was. I'd even oppose a merge, good topic and plenty of material, but to be even discussing this on AfD when deletion has no rationale and no support is ridiculous. No other word for it. Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with merge/redirect per, , and . Wait a month or two, and if it's still getting coverage independent of the attacks we can spin it back out. ansh666 06:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge This topic makes little sense without the background of the attack itself. So the content is better in that article. BTW, the votes for Merge and Delete are invalid and should be treated as just merge, while Merge and Redirect is pointless since redirecting is part of merging Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per rationale by the nominator. Its span is just reaction of the shooting and have not made any significance in worldwide press, countries. We do not have articles on "I am Malala" or "I'llridewithyou" and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Iniciativass (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep What another ridiculous attempt to delete a perfectly good article. This is big enough to have it's own separate article. The information is relevant and important to anyone interested in researching on the shootings now and later on.--Joey (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment yes I do wonder about the mentality of people who seriously want this deleted. I feel like John MceEnroe "you cannot be serious?"... --<span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive; color:blue;">Mrjulesd <span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive; color:orange;">(talk)  12:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. The term has been cited in recent media but makes no sense without the attack. Indiuser (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. I would never have found it defined otherwise. 208.163.245.101 (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — 208.163.245.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. The article sheds light on an aspect entirely different from the shootings themselves. Shashwat986 &rarr; talk 12:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. With a FFS thrown in for good measure. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I was originaly going to vote for a merge when I saw that Yes We Can (slogan) but then I came upon Drill, baby, drill. This deletion request is ridiculous. Many slogans have their own pages on wikipedia and this is a notable, significant slogan. If we delete this one we must delete all of them.--76.111.48.47 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — 76.111.48.47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. This is a world movement, with significant coverage from sources. --FocalPoint (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. In fact I am shocked that Wikipedia is considering deleting. Je Suis Charlie is the most important development to happen in Europe since at least 1987. It is historical. Users should be able to find out about the movement simply by inputting these words. Have some pity for your users! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmeyer1884 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)  — Cmeyer1884 (talk
 * I am strongly against deletion of the article. Not because of sympathy and so on but because it seems that "Je suis Charlie" has quickly become a slogan of solidarity, that is, a culturally important phenomenon. I even dare to presume that in the case of future attacks "Je suis X" or "I am X" ("X" being the name of the attacked organization, institution or group) would emerge again. Forms of solidarity can be a field of historical, political, cultural, and psychological interest - and study. 93.152.163.41 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — 93.152.163.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep. This is a historical symbol of unity for freedom in speech and just Europe. 89.191.106.114 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note there's another keep on the talk page. [] Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously meets GNG. Sam Sing! 20:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Procedure etc
Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Je suis Charlie. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (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.