Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto Slutwalk


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep. The nominator brought up mostly issues of WP:NPOV which can be addressed in the talk page, without deleting the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Toronto Slutwalk

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. While I personally appreciate the cause taken up by the subject of this article, the article as it stands right now is a major violation of NPOV. The article subject may meet notability requirements, but I believe it is so hopelessly POV that an NPOV article can only be achieved by blowing it up and starting over. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewrite, then assess - Otherwise, delete. CycloneGU (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nom admits its a notable topic, and is correct. There are reliable sources cited. Article may be stubbed or rewritten to eliminate OR and essay-like features. I will do it myself before the nomination period expires if no-one gets to it first. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The main subject of the article doesn't show the sort of coverage required to avoid a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Much of the article is essentially originial research/synthesis and advocacy, intended to demonstrate the significance of the problem the article subject attempts to address. Whatever the merits of the cause involved, this just isn't an encyclopedic article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Kuyabribri and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's rationales. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I removed most of the WP:OR and WP:COATRACK material. What is left is well sourced and I believe avoids WP:1E because other such demonstrations are reported planned, so this is more of a protest movement than a random news event which happened one day. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (but consider move to Slutwalk as the phenomenon spreads: see   ). Notability seems well confirmed: geographic scope and persistence of coverage seem on their way). The POV and essay issues are substantial but not grounds for deletion; the final essay-style section is fundamentally about the motivations and arguments of the protesters which can be attributed rather than stated as a fact, or pulled where it is undue weight for an article about the protest itself.--Carwil (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  01:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Slutwalk. The original slutwalk in Toronto received some coverage, but would have been just a news item if that is all that had happened.  However, this has spread from Toronto with other cities also holding such events, and garnering coverage in the media raising this beyond just a news event. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - The march was covered by the CBC, check out footnote 1. I don't think POV is the issue here, although possibly NOTNEWS comes into play. If this was a one-off demonstration, probably not inclusion-worthy in my book; if it is an annual event, probably it is. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Slutwalk. Has sufficient coverage to establish notability, but it's happening in more than one city. Significant societal topic: women responding to police and judges claiming that a man is not responsible for raping a woman who dresses in a sexy manner. (Is the Taliban the source of a significant number of judges and police officers in Canada?). Edison (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Largely as noted by others, move to SlutWalk (universally reported in CamelCase, so that should be retained), with the Toronto material serving as background and history. Coverage of these protests has now been picked up by at least MSNBC (via the Associated Press).  Cleanup and editorial issues do not appear fatal to the ability to sustain an article on the topic.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Slutwalk and Keep. This has received enough coverage from reliable sources over a lasting period of time that we can say it's not just a flash-in-the-pan news story, but a notable event/movement. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to SlutWalk or Slutwalk. It's notable enough for a BBC article, and is spawning multiple events. Onanoff (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep on account of the multitude of sources. I have no opinion about the renaming, and besides, the article name is out of scope for a deletion discussion, and can be attended to after the deletion discussion has concluded.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just saw a video about this at USA Today, and came to Wikipedia for more info.  The video was actually covering a Slutwalk that took place in Boston, but I added the link as a ref to this article.  I just found another link at Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/slutwalk-united-states-city_n_851725.html) that links to Slutwalks in other North American cities, and which also mentions Slutwalks in cities elsewhere around the globe.  MSNBC has covered the subject as well.  This should help establish that the subject is in fact notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  However, I think either the title of the article should be changed simply to "Slutwalk", or another article should be created under that title which is about the phenomenon as a whole.Adrigon (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to SlutWalk. This is getting multiple articles in BBC, NYT, etc and its notability is therefore established. We don't need a separate article for each city, though.  {Heroeswithmetaphors   talk}  20:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with previous statement. This has taken off and it is far more than froth.Robertforsythe
 * As a result of the major cleanup that has happened on this article since I opened this AfD, I withdraw this nomination, as my original rationale of advocacy/hopeless POV no longer apply. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is major; even if it doesn't become a regular event like other protest marches on which we have articles, its geographical scope more than qualifies it to pass WP:EVENT. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:45, 11 May 2011 (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.