Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weinstein effect (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Weinstein effect
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is full of good content that should be on Wikipedia. However, a lot of the content in this article feels like it would make more sense as part of articles on #MeToo, and would improve those articles and provide context. I feel this article doesn't really have a reason to stand on it's own, especially since the "Weinstein effect" isn't really a well defined term even in this article and has had limited usage. Hence, I think it may make more sense to merge this with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeToo_movement. (This is my second AfD nomination, I hope I'm doing this right). Update: I took a look at the previous AfD discussion, with over seven years since the last nomination, it seems that time has made this a case of WP: NEO. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Film,  and Sexuality and gender. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gonna be bold here: Snow close. The articles in question, Weinstein effect and MeToo movement should be edited appropriately, nothing to delete here. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Using AfD to propose a merge and redirect like this isn't particularly abnormal (the merge proposal process, which would be the alternative, is seen as largely broken). The nominator made an argument that can be considered under WP:PAGEDECIDE, so I don't see a need for a snow close.  Sdkb  talk 20:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't disagree on your view. There obviously are alternative ways of dealing with a problem like the issue at hand, I for one would rather get in touch with significant contributors and seek an opinion. However, if it's the D in AfD that's the case here, and concerning the D I do see a close (okay maybe not necessarily a snow but it felt like a snow moment at first instinct) because there's other things to consider here. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep if not snowball, the article is about an event that is still remembered to this day by regular people and has tons of reliable sources on it. Jeanette the Porn Chat Star Martin (aqui) 05:53, 21 March, 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I agree with the comments of User:JeanetteMartin above, and with the result of the first afd. While some some cleanup of the article may be in order, I can see no compelling reason for deletion or merging. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The first AfD was no closed with no prejudice against a merger. And "no compelling reason" isn't a rebuttal to the argument that the OP made. That argument is about scope, so to refute it you need to show that the two pages have sufficiently different scopes that it makes sense to present them separately. As a closer, I would discount the tons of reliable sources comments, which would speak to a notability challenge not being made here. For the folks in the back: Notability is not the only reason that a page can be unsuitable . I'm disappointed with the quality of the discussion so far.  Sdkb  talk 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to second the argument here, this isn't a notability discussion, this is about whether the information in the article overlaps with already written content on Wikipedia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: A well-referenced article for a concept that continues to have impact. Toughpigs (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article describes it a Weinstein Effect as "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," then proceeds to list only one example (the #MeToo movement), it should either be completely reworked to talk about other examples that do not follow from or are adjacent to #MeToo, or it should be merged with the article about the #MeToo if it is just another name for the movement. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The term is covered in USA Today, CBS News and others. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the context of the #MeToo movement, not really outside of it. This article frankly needs to be more clear on what it is. Is it "fallout of the Harvey Weinstein scandal"? Or is it "the social repercussions of movements that expose powerful people (only in cases of sexual harassment? not cases of sexual harassment?)"? Or is it just "a part of the #MeToo movement"? Frankly, some of these provide cases for keeping the article, which is fine, but in that case, we better make it very clear what the article is about. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That comment makes for a very confusing rationale for deletion. It seems like you're arguing for a merge with MeToo movement (or possibly several related pages, per your original statement), but you've also suggested that you're not sure whether it entirely overlaps with MeToo.
 * I would suggest that an Articles for Deletion discussion is not the best format to make this determination. This is a problem that can only be solved by careful analysis and thoughtful editing, and you are apparently the person who's most invested in figuring it out. AfD participants are going to treat this like an AfD nomination. You're posing a more complex question, which is probably best explored as a bold merge attempt. Toughpigs (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the reason I made the request is because I felt that deleting the article (and transferring some of its content) would be the cleanest solution, (and my preferred solution). I'm not good at merge attempts, but if you think that would be a better approach, feel free to make one! I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Allan Nonymous I don't want to criticise You here, after all we're all learning as we go, but bringing the article to the deletion pages seems like you needed a forum for comment on what to do with the articles. There should be another way to seek comments on articles on WP, but I don't know if there is one. Maybe contacting relevant wikiprojects or significant contributors? @Toughpigs my thoughts exactly. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge content into the #MeToo article and Harvey Weinstein BLP. As Allan Nonymous said, the first line of the article title, that the Weinstein Effect is "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," isn't well supported. Describing it as a global trend known by that name that persists into the present doesn't seem accurate. #MeToo captures it better.--FeralOink (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, more so as of today than ever. Since this was nominated, this has been in the news overnight in connection with P. Diddy's absconding from the Federal (United States) authorities. It's as if it's an ongoing event with a long legacy. Oh wait .... See WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2024 (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.