Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Belong Together (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. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

We Belong Together (campaign)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG. giso6150 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Very little direct coverage of the campaign itself outside of primary and non-RS sites. Not notable per WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The article already contains significant coverage from the Washington Post and Huffington Post. Other material is available, for example this. The campaign has significant coverage from independent reliable sources and clearly meets WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources mentioned by MelanieN. The subject passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to elsewhere, I'm already seeing significant coverage among secondary sources and noteworthy sources as demonstrated in the article, itself, at present, now, at this current point in time, and not needed to go into the future to find this. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (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.