Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YesAllWomen


 * 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. A rather obvious snow close of a well-sourced article, of an easily notable hashtag. No sense in letting this run on any longer - A l is o n  ❤ 22:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

YesAllWomen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable hashtag. fails WP:LASTING. Beerest 2 Talk page 12:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with international coverage in multiple well-known, widely distributed publications. Whether it has lasting effect is as yet unproven either way, but WP:LASTING is not a reason for deleting: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * too early to tell we need to wait a few months to see if this has had lasting effect. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * merge to 2014 Isla Vista killings as is already suggested. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I really, really don't like the idea of full articles for individual Twitter hashtags.  It is an abomination against all that is encyclopedic.  However, this has satisfied the requirements of the GNG.  If there's no  lasting news coverage, then we can merge it into an appropriate article.  Ask me again in six months how I feel about this article, and I might support a merge proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Do not merge, as 2014 Isla Vista killings is already at a point where WP:SIZERULE, which is a guideline, recommends splitting out content, rather than folding new content in. This is a sensible editorial cut point for a spinout article whether or not it meets WP:GNG.  (I happen to think it clearly does, as well.)   --j⚛e deckertalk 15:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck out SIZERULE argument, as the guideline refers to readable prose, leaving the measurement I used in my opinion above invalid. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Do not merge or delete. While it started with the 2014 Isla Vista killings, the hashtag is now notable enough on its own through international coverage to warrant its own entry. --Smokebomb (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted in WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Satisfies significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Suggest wait and see. Lradon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:LASTING is in direct conflict with NTEMP. Bottom line is that this satisfies WP:GNG. End of story. And I strongly suggest everyone consider The Gender Gap on this one. --Theredproject (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Technically those two policies aren't in conflict with each other, it's just pointing out that lasting effects is one type of notability. WP:LASTING is not a reason to delete a page, as Colapeninsula pointed out above, although it can be a reason to merge a page. We really should give the page a few months, though, since between the fact that it's an ongoing thing, and the fact that the 2014 Isla Vista killings page continues to grow, this almost certainly deserves its own page. - Shiori (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the user above Lathomas64 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2014 Isla Vista killings Fails to meet WP:LASTING on its own. Datavortex (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Agreed with j⚛e decker. The subject has enough notability to be recognized with at least a lengthy section within 2014 Isla Vista killings, which is sort of has already, but the parent article is getting to the point where is should be split out anyway. - Shiori (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - Notable enough for an article. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  20:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above discussions and due to the cumulative cultural significance, i.e. NYT ' s unpublished satirical cartoon.--DrWho42 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, ask me again in a month. I'm not incredibly fond of an article about a hashtag, particularly since hashtag activism tends to be, by its nature, fleeting in both popularity and impact. That said, this one has received enough coverage and attention to meet WP:GNG, but it's too soon to say whether it will also meet WP:LASTING. I also have concerns about whether coverage of this topic can ever be truly neutral, as there already seem to be a lot of problems with WP:UNDUE, but that's not so much of a keep/delete argument as a general observation. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note: "There's a Battle Going on Over the Wikipedia Page for #YesAllWomen" at Jezebel ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jezebel calls it a "battle" - Not much of a battle when it comes to Wikipedia. I don't think the author understands how Wikipedia works.Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Also keep, but it doesn't look like anyone is really arguing deletion at this point. We're just keeping it open out of politeness to the nominator? It is their 365th edit after all, that's one for every day! ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly socially and culturally relevant event that has been covered around the world, completely independent from the crime. Blaze33541 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep- This is a notable social response to a significant event. — Sddblake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:26, June 6, 2014‎ (UTC).
 * Comment It appears that this article has been mentioned by a news organization, and may promote single purpose accounts that contribute to this discussion. I've added the appropriate tag. The specific article is http://jezebel.com/theres-a-battle-going-on-over-the-wikipedia-page-for-y-1586704111 . Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2014 Isla Vista killings Does not meet WP:LASTING, WP:GNG, nor WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a news website or database for passing fads. Should not be in its own article. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Snowkeep eep. It obviously meets the GNG as it stands currently and is still receiving significant coverage. Trout the nominator because WP:LASTING is not a reason to delete the article currently. WP:LASTING is not a way/reason to preemptively delete articles just because they're something that doesn't have lasting coverage because it hasn't had time to receive lasting coverage yet. Additionally, as Joe Decker points out above, the proposed merge target already hits sizerule. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Do not merge nor delete. An article on #YesAllWomen is important. This is exemplified by the fact that hastags are now the subject of academic books. In the past two years, several books have focused on the phenomenon. For instance, according to Interpreting hashtag politics : policy ideas in an era of social media hastags allow in part to map the diversity of viewpoints and how to capture debates, among others. Another book such Tweets and the streets : social media and contemporary activism examines the relationship between the rise of social media and the emergence of a new protest culture. Many other academic books have focused on hastags. This is an important cultural and political phenomenon, which should be reflected in Wikipedia. --P119921618 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As previously pointed out, intended merge target is already at sizerule, and the hashtag has grown independent of the shootings. Mtndrums (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Trim and merge While the shooting article may be at sizerule, that doesn't mean we can't trim this and merge. "Merge" =/= "copying and pasting an entire article into another." For instance, there is no article on 1777 campaign of George Washington, despite the fact that our article on him is very long. As Jonathanbishop says, Wikipedia is not a database of fads.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 15:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:LASTING, WP:GNG, nor WP:NOR. Not eligible for merge with 2014 Isla Vista killings as that article is already at a point where WP:SIZERULE, which is a guideline, recommends splitting out content, rather than folding new content in. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2014 Isla Vista killings is only 4000 words, and the readable prose size is 23KB. That's nowhere near the limit.  I think people may be confusing the "readable prose size" with "wiki markup size".  These two small articles could easily be merged together, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.  I would prefer that they were, but there's no real policy mandate for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you were right about the guideline here, I've removed that part of my rationale, a ways above. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - As other have pointed out, it may take some more time to see how lasting the effect is, but that's not a reason to delete it yet. As well as continuing to get multiple posts (random sample 12 posts in the last 5 minutes) on Twitter, the YesAllWomen tag is also being used on other social media sites (e.g., Pinterest, LA Times, Facebook , Google+.  I think it's moved in significance beyond the 2014 Isla Vista killings.  If #YesAllWomen is not significant enough to keep, will we question keeping that article too? -CocoaZen (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be two three ongoing discussions concerning this article - one here on deletion - and another discussion on the talk page at 2014 Isla Vista killings and another at the talk page of the yesallwomen article about merging the content of this article into that one. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, the consensus (albeit a weak one) at the talk page discussion about merging is oppose, as is the other discussion at the other talk page. Two of the three paragraphs in the section pertaining to this hashtag in the 2014 Isla Vista killing's article are nothing but opinion's of not so notable commentators anyway. If anything, the content from that article should be merged into this one. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - this discussion is a bit premature. This thing is very much connected to the shootings right now, but could show permanence, or fizzle out and then warrant merger.  Isaidnoway's comments about removing some of the opinions pieces is not so relevant.  There's opinion all over wikipedia from various reliable sources (these qualify), but at any rate they focus on the YesAllWomen hashtag in the context of the violence and are therefor germane to the article. There are more negative views on the hashtag, but these were selected because they were written by women, one of whom is a somewhat prominent feminist.  I suspect some might not like them because they are not as positive on all aspects YesAllwomen, but I think they are helpful for balance and NPOV.Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - this has indeed gotten enough press coverage to be considered notable (albeit, not sure if it has *lasting* notability, the criterion for which is not well defined on WP). However, this should absolutely not set a precedent to create articles on temporary "internet notable" phenomenon. Also, we should be sure to continue to cover this topic in an NPOV manner, as well as adequately cover criticisms of the hashtag/movement. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - this particular internet occurrence has received enough coverage to have lasting notability. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 03:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant discussion among multiple sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - it clearly is a reaction to the Vista Isle shootings and ought to redirect there. As should the article, for fairness' sake. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Do not merge nor delete. Writers and academics will find this sort of information useful for their work as an example of the Internet-enabled mobilization of women. This hashtag was inspired by the shooting but has actually grown into a much wider conversation that deserves its own page. The debates about its very existence suggests that it is notable enough.Magsmacaulay (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per nominee's suggestion that it fails WP:LASTING, this is a recent subject (2-3 weeks old), and I think it's too soon to assess whether it had a lasting effect. Meanwhile, general notability guidelines suggest a presumption of notability based on the very significant coverage in many very well known reliable sources cited in the article. I think deletion based on WP:LASTING or WP:ONEEVENT, in this case, will require a longer period with which to assess the subject in a historical context. This Daily Beast column, which makes the argument three days after its inception that the hash tag had "jumped the shark", also acknowledges that "#YesAllWomen isn’t just a hashtag; it’s a social media movement", suggesting that that there may be some effect distinct from the initial hashtag creation. I think time will make this clearer, one way or the other. Agyle (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether this subject will meet WP:LASTING is something that can be determined in the future. #YesAllWomen has catalyzed discussions about misogyny and there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE up through this week in national publications including The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and MSNBC. gobonobo  + c 22:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Enough coverage separate from the event that spawned it, enough content about just it, it deserves its own article.   D r e a m Focus  22:08, 9 June 2014 (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.