- 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 speedy keep. Removing one part of a notable article is not what AfD is for. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Me Too (hashtag)
- Me Too (hashtag) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article consists mostly of an arbitrary list of names of people who have had harassment allegations levelled against them since the fallout from the Harvey Weinstein controversy. While the article purports to about the Me Too hashtag, the minimal amount of content dedicated to this aim compared to the length of the indiscriminating list of names that follows it gives it the appearance of a WP:COATRACK.
Some if not many of the names being linked to single allegations are not even necessarily related to the topic of the page, and many of the citations are to questionable sources. Without specific context for each person listed, the list is a libel lawsuit in the making and is likely in breach of WP:BLP. An indiscriminating list of anyone who has since had any sort of allegation of any type made against them, regardless of reliability, as long as they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page is not the responsible way of documenting these serious, potentially reputation damaging matters.
There is some discussion on the the article's talk page about the appropriateness of the included list, but most of the conversation appears to be between contributors who created the list in the first place. Given the potentially defamatory nature of the list and a possible breach of WP:BLP, it seems appropriate to list the whole article here for a broader consensus. Kb.au ( talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a notable movement or moment or some such thing. [1] [2] [3] I had said this should be merged into the Harvey Weinstein article, back in October. In the last six weeks, this has clearly blossomed into a notable topic. They are Time Person of the Year. We're not committing libel, we're reporting on founded accusations. I wouldn't be against finding another name for the page (Time Magazine called them the Silence Breakers, so I redirected that term to the Me Too article), but the content meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and close: There are 316 sources in the article; almost everything in the article is sourced. I believe the problems the nominator posed are a) not as serious as he seems to think, and b) resolvable without an AfD discussion. p b p 15:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I think you might have an argument for the removal (or addition) of specific individuals or incidents, and certainly BLP has to be a concern with topics such as this. But I don't see any credible argument that the topic is not notable. If there is a need for broader discussion about whether the list should be included, an RFC would do the trick - no need to delete the entire article wholesale. See also Time Person of the Year for 2017. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:20, 6 December 2017 (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.
- 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 speedy keep. Removing one part of a notable article is not what AfD is for. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Me Too (hashtag)
- Me Too (hashtag) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article consists mostly of an arbitrary list of names of people who have had harassment allegations levelled against them since the fallout from the Harvey Weinstein controversy. While the article purports to about the Me Too hashtag, the minimal amount of content dedicated to this aim compared to the length of the indiscriminating list of names that follows it gives it the appearance of a WP:COATRACK.
Some if not many of the names being linked to single allegations are not even necessarily related to the topic of the page, and many of the citations are to questionable sources. Without specific context for each person listed, the list is a libel lawsuit in the making and is likely in breach of WP:BLP. An indiscriminating list of anyone who has since had any sort of allegation of any type made against them, regardless of reliability, as long as they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page is not the responsible way of documenting these serious, potentially reputation damaging matters.
There is some discussion on the the article's talk page about the appropriateness of the included list, but most of the conversation appears to be between contributors who created the list in the first place. Given the potentially defamatory nature of the list and a possible breach of WP:BLP, it seems appropriate to list the whole article here for a broader consensus. Kb.au ( talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a notable movement or moment or some such thing. [1] [2] [3] I had said this should be merged into the Harvey Weinstein article, back in October. In the last six weeks, this has clearly blossomed into a notable topic. They are Time Person of the Year. We're not committing libel, we're reporting on founded accusations. I wouldn't be against finding another name for the page (Time Magazine called them the Silence Breakers, so I redirected that term to the Me Too article), but the content meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and close: There are 316 sources in the article; almost everything in the article is sourced. I believe the problems the nominator posed are a) not as serious as he seems to think, and b) resolvable without an AfD discussion. p b p 15:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I think you might have an argument for the removal (or addition) of specific individuals or incidents, and certainly BLP has to be a concern with topics such as this. But I don't see any credible argument that the topic is not notable. If there is a need for broader discussion about whether the list should be included, an RFC would do the trick - no need to delete the entire article wholesale. See also Time Person of the Year for 2017. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:20, 6 December 2017 (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.