Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WalkAway campaign


 * 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. Despite being potentially ironic in doing so, there is strong consensus that notability is established (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

WalkAway campaign
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a hashtag that went viral. Of the RS that report on it, a WaPo "analysis" piece suggests it's not meaningful, a CNN op-ed says that the popularity of the hashtag was inflated by Russian trolls, and Snopes found that photos associated with the movement were stock photos. The rest of the sources look unreliable, with the exception of Fox (which is considered a RS on the RS noticeboard) but which has a clear anti-Dem bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment : What is the argument for deletion presented here? You've linked 3 reliable sources in your nomination statement, so it's clearly notable.  Brad  v  15:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention this but two of the three sources are not straight-news reporting but rather op-eds and analysis pieces, and both of those pieces dispute that the hashtag is notable. The third source (Snopes) on a similar line suggests that the popularity of the movement is artificially inflated. So, of the three RS, they are all effectively about how this movement is not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , notable means "worthy of notice", and in Wikipedia terms that's determined by coverage in reliable sources. So reliable sources arguing that something is not notable are, ironically, proving that it is notable. And the NY Post and the Fox articles are not opinion pieces. Brad  v  15:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing "comment" to "keep". No valid deletion reason given. Brad  v  16:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the first I've heard of this, and I appreciate that Wikipedia has an apparently neutral article on the topic. Don't confuse "notable" with "real". If astroturfing is sufficiently widespread to get noticed by mainstream media, that seems to make it notable to me. This wouldn't be notable if the media felt that there was no need to debunk it. See also Pizzagate. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a real campaign. It may not be a very successful campaign, but to conflate the success of the campaign with the notability of the campaign is just POV-pushing. It's not even good POV-pushing; if you delete any mention of a thing from the reliable media, people aren't going to think "oh well, I guess this is a thing I'm not supposed to know about", they're going to go to the unreliable media. Chi Sigma (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, add reference to Blexit, the “separate but equal” astroturfed effort aimed at blacks. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument for deletion lists reliable sources, so I'm a little confused by this whole thing. Natureium (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is covered by RS and it is deem notable under GNG.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. We've all seen the arguments provided in the last AfD, and I'm not convinced that this does not pass GNG. w umbolo   ^^^  21:20, 7 November 2018 (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.