Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walkaway (political 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 delete. Consensus is that this is one of many minor political memes. Can be userfied (though not by me) for the purpose of merging into another article if desired.  Sandstein  19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Walkaway (political movement)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Empty article about an empty slogan/hashtag. No independent sense whatsoever that this is a real and/or notable thing. Calton | Talk 19:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the only reliable source cited (the Washington Post article) undermines the notability of the subject: There’s little actual evidence to suggest that #WalkAway represents a mass conversion of millions — or even thousands — of Democrats to the Trump Train since Straka’s video. Without that, then this is an article about a recent meme, and contains nothing of encyclopedic value. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW. There's zero evidence this is notable; in fact, the only reliable source in the article says otherwise. It's a made up meme without any basis in reality. Truth is still truth. We are still an encyclopedia, not a soap box. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete A one line article, on a non notable topic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It's still a notable article. It is a phenomenon at the current time, people are going to want to find out about this. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete There's no evidence of notability to this random political talking point. People leave and join political parties all the time; that doesn't equate to a movement. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - While there is definitely a question as to how extensive this “movement” actually is, There is a notable topic here... the “movement” has been discussed extensively in reliable news media sources (even if only as an example of how social media can be manipulated for political purposes). The article needs to be re-written, not deleted. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ...even if only as an example of how social media can be manipulated for political purposes
 * Then that would make "media manipulation" the actual topic, then, not this -- and I'd like to see some evidence for this "extensive" discussion. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently there are three sources on the article. One saying it's basically bullshit. One that is not from a reliable source (RT) and one from Yahoo which interviews the person who is credited with starting the Hashtag. There's no suggestion of WP:SUSTAINED coverage; and ephemeral Twitter drama isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me how RT, the Russian propaganda wing is a reliable source. Explain to me how a Norgwegian Alt-right website is as well. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you misinterpreted what I said. I was saying that RT is definitely not a reliable source. I would also dispute the reliability of a Norwegian Alt-right website if I knew what you were mentioning. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Hashtag "movements" are a dime a dozen. No evidence that this one was more than a temporary bit of entertainment on Twitter. If it ever gains legs and is documented in reliable sources, then we could have an article. As of now, it's non-notable without enough reliable sources to support an article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Russian web brigades. Enough citations here for a mention there, but this is still just another one-off hashtag brigade. There's not enough substance to support its own article beyond "it happened." Citations can be added to expand the target article and if this somehow grows beyond yet another isolated brigade-tag, we can always undo the redirect & expand the original article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: the redirect Brandon Straka should be added to this list.--Calton | Talk 18:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Nom and all 6 editors opining delete do so without showing evidence that they searched fo the term, some actually claim only to have looked at sourcing already on the page.  Seriously guys, the quesiton at AfD is whether the topic is notable, not whether the article is comprehensive.  I have added a couple of more reasonable searchbars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * possibly keep. WP:HEY, there's actually been quite a bit of coverage in WP:RS media, especially around allegations of fake news (fake accounts of liberals who "left".  But now there is also INDEPTH, yesterday's NBC News: Meet Brandon Straka, a gay former liberal encouraging others to #WalkAway from Democrats.  Black Lives Matter is perhaps the most notable example of of a hashtag that made the big time, see: Category:Hashtags, and Hashtag activism.  Page needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a bit like the garage band arguing that, like the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, are also a band which uses guitars and drums and therefore deserves an article. --Calton | Talk 22:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The movement (if we want to call it that) is marginal. Straka himself is a wee bit more notable but I still don't see sustained and in-depth coverage. Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per all the improvements made since the article was nominated. Please note the nomination is in error.  The nomination reads: that the subject is not a "notable thing".  This is wrong.  The subject meets WP:NOTE on account of the widespread coverage it has received.  For example, the issue was covered in July by Arutz Sheva of Israel, by CNN, and by Australia's Morning Herald.  In august, it was covered by Aftenposten, the newspaper of record of Norway.  The nomination ought to be withdrawn on these grounds alone.  XavierItzm (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment While I recognize the effort that went into finding new sources I still see an article that is entirely WP:RECENTISM without much indicator of sustained coverage. The notability seems to be that it was picked up by "Russian bots," and if we start putting up an article for every idiotic thing "Russian bots" amplify all day we won't have a very high quality encyclopedia anymore. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yesterday's INDEPTH NBC News article does show SUSTAINED.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That, like everything not about the "Russian bots" in the article is actually a profile of Straka, not of the purported movement. See also WP:INHERITED and, for why Straka isn't notable himself WP:BLP1E Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that Stratka redirects to this page. Also, article needs a subhead on the Russian bots; news searches bring up INDEPTH coverage of Russian promotion of this hashtag that ran in WP:RS 2-3 months ago.  Once we have that material on the page, it should be added to the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Effectively we've already accepted that Straka is not notable under WP:BLP1E - and all the coverage of this "movement" falls into two categories: 1) Profiles of Straka (irrelevant as he's not notable) or 2) It's all just Russian Bots manufacturing a movement that doesn't exist. I'd suggest a non-existent movement fronted by a non-notable minor actor is the very definition of non-notability. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume that the redirect occurred before the NBC national new profile?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E would still apply even with the NBC profile. Because it's referencing the same one event in an otherwise non-notable life. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A hashtag "political movement"! With hundreds of retweets!  Delete.  The NBC article could eventually be used in a bio on Straka, if anyone ever writes another profile of him. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * new vote below Delete too soon. Perhaps the effects will be examined after the midterms. w umbolo   ^^^  21:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme (yet). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a logical target for a Redirrect? Most interesting aspect of topic is the swift and well-documented support for this meme by Russian BOTS. It's an issue I follow in real life, but haven't edited on.  Are we collecting instances of stuff, including hashtags, memes, promoted by Russian bots on a page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There’s Web Brigades Simonm223 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 *  Merge  to Web brigades, where I have added 2 brief sentences.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment although I still prefer just deleting this as being a non-issue, I'd be satisfied with a merge as per too. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with this merge as an acceptable compromise. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone wants to add a mention to Web brigades, go to town, but I don't agree with a merge and/or redirect, because that would be using a false title. --Calton | Talk 16:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning here, would you care to elaborate? Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious: it's NOT a "political movement", it's a (failed) ad campaign. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote a falsehood. --Calton | Talk 17:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hear what you're saying, but a redirect to Web brigades is kind of the opposite of an endorsement of this as a political movement and would make it much less likely that somebody will try to bring this back at AfC five minutes later. Simonm223 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it *is* an implicit endorsement of this as a "political movement" because it CALLS IT A POLITICAL MOVEMENT IN THE TITLE. --Calton | Talk 01:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, then how about E.M.Gregory's compromise proposal below? That seems like it would resolve your concern. Simonm223 (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not redirect this specific title. The claim this is a "political movement" is far from settled. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reiterating that I think the subsection and link E.M. Gregory created is sufficient at this time and this entry should be deleted. I took a stab at revising to see what could be verifiably summarized from reliable sources; there's probably still more to cut and one paragraph fully covers it. If there's sustained coverage, we can revisit but for now it is far TOOSOON for wikinotability; the entry itself says it's not clear whether this anything more than, as JBL puts it, a bunch of tweets. In the limited extent to which tweet activity could be encyclopedic content, E.M. Gregory has found a place to cover it within a topic that has notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Proposal, We could redirect page to #Walkaway, then redirect #Walkaway to Web brigades.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do see the reasoning for having some search term direct there, but I still don't believe it's justified to put the Wikipedia imprimatur on "Walkaway (political movement)" in any form, and think it should be deleted (if it's recreated repeatedly, it can be salted). And then I'm not sure what I do think would be an appropriate alternative. "Walkaway (hashtag)" or "Walkaway (meme)" feel overly anodyne. What about just listing the subsection link you made at the Walk Away dab page? That would give space for a little more explanation than a title alone. But folks just looking through the search results for it also seems like an acceptable outcome to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I have added it to the Walk Away dab page, and it has a brief, sourced section at Web brigades.  That's probably as much as the sources justify.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

*Delete changing opinion, as described above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a viral phenomenon with no established impact or historical significance at this time, this instance of hashtag activism is not notable per WP:EVENTCRIT#4 ("Routine kinds of news events"). —  Newslinger  talk   11:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Well if you are no longer of the opinion your compromise position is warranted I'll keep my !vote to what it was originally. IE: Delete. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF, snarkiness, dismissiveness, and, in general, displays of attitude damage the project. To be clear, the factor that I had not considered until the dab page was mentioned was how many disparate other uses "walk away" has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry, I was assuming good faith. All I meant is when you proposed merge I was leaning toward either that or delete; I'd originally been firmly on the side of delete but saw a merge as a way to effectively salt the topic without needing to do something as forcefully as actually salting it, but didn't care that much. But if you have changed your mind on the issue I'd probably not bother changing my !vote. Honestly I was not intending to come off snarky and perhaps I should have another coffee. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. Your comment provoked me to run more thorough searches).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * keep but move to #walkaway (with apologies for vacillating.)  It now seems to me, that with coverage of intervention by Russian bots now in the article -  excellent sourcing to NBC News,  Coverage has been sufficiently INDEPTH and ONGOING  to keep, provided we move this meme/hashtag to #walkaway.  Nom's rationale (and i-Votes of early visitors ot this page were made obsolete by the August NBC News INDEPTH story.  In addition there has been INDEPTH ongoing both in rightwing but INDEPENDENT sources such as  The Daily Wire, "The Daily Wire Speaks With #WalkAway Founder Brandon Straka About Why He Abandoned The Left And Became A Conservative", leftwing, Aftenposten: "Da frisørens video plutselig tok fullstendig av, ble mange mistenksomme. Så fant de spor av russiske troll",  and center The Daily Beast: "The Right’s New Viral Star Is ‘Red-Pilled’ Hair Stylist From New York".  Plenty of each visible in a news search on walkaway + Straka.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, WP:HEY,article has been completely rewritten during this discussion. Reliability and international nature of the significant and sustained coverage are now easy to see. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Aftenposten is a newspaper of record. w umbolo   ^^^  14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename to #Walkaway and redirect to Web brigades I appreciate the WP:HEY effort that went into this, but I still don't believe it's notable outside the boundaries of its connection to its enactor - who I still think would be excluded per WP:BLP1E and its connection to Russian Bots. As such, while it's definitely a notable example of a bot campaign, I don't think it's sufficiently notable to be due its own article. I have struck through my previous Delete !vote. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 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.