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 Snow keep. There seems to be enough coverage to show that this passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boobquake[edit]

Boobquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated by Oxr033 (talk), who posted this rationale on the discussion page instead of the AFD page --Brian the Editor (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC) "I have nominated this article for deletion because I think it has extremely little worth. All the sources are either from feminist blog-type sites, or are in the 'and finally ...' section of one or two respectable news publications. The topic is very frivolous and not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, as many have already stated in this talk page. Oxr033 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

• Keep. Before I start to explain why the page should not be deleted, please let me establish my credibility, such as it is, by pointing out that I was the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer McCreight. (That page is now a redirect to the page under discussion here. And there actually was a consensus in that discussion that this page, about the event, clearly deals with a subject that satisfies our notability criteria.) So I'm not merely making an "I like it" argument for keeping. No, the page should be kept for the simple reason that it clearly passes WP:GNG. Unfortunately, a lot of the nomination rationale is a textbook example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Although some of the sourcing is based on blogs as the nominator claims, let's look at other sourcing on the page. The New York Times covered the events that triggered the protest. The protest itself became the central topic (not "and finally") of articles in the Toronto Star, Daily Mail, Paris Herald, Washington Examiner, The Independent, and Vanity Fair. No matter how you parse it, the page satisfies WP:GNG (and there's no problem with WP:NOT). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (edit conflict) passes WP:GNG & WP:EVENTS, IMO I see no reason for this to be nominated/deleted -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The event received a lot of news coverage, passing WP:GNG. Also, how is a social event with 200,000 participants "frivolous"? The references should indeed be looked over, a few sections are overweighted, there's not enough variety in the list of responses, etc. However, all of these things can be corrected. Marechal Ney (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Appears to meet the general notability guideline. I can't see anything that would warrant deletion at this point. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems that the coverage was in depth. Also it passes WP:DIVERSE.Farhikht (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A bit silly but now that Iran's changed it's whole policy... ha ha ... but seriously, more than enough refs on notability for us inclusionists. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - mainly per Trypotfish: "because I think it has extremely little worth" is not a reason to delete. Also clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTE. That doesn't mean the article is pefect (by any strecthc of the imagination) - it needs some work as Marechal Ney has suggested--Cailil ^talk 15:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample coverage and 200,000 people participated in it. Dream Focus 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widespread coverage as demonstrated by the the article's sources makes this pass WP:EVENT. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 19:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Major event, feminist backing or otherwise, the size of the event shows notability and coverage in RSes allows for a full and detailed article without original research. A definite keep. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.