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 merge to Black Twitter. slakr^\ talk / 07:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen[edit]

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

I'm doubtful that a single hashtag, even if mentioned in multiple sources, deserves a separate Wikipedia article. Note that most of the sources stem from the period right around August 2013, when Ms. Kendall coined this hashtag. Compare WP:BLP1E. I'm looking forward to hearing other opinions on this. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups related deletion discussions. --Ronja (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may be unusual, but the subject appears reasonable notable and cited. I say keep because there are few other places such knowledge would be recorded other than on Wikipedia. --gilgongo (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three of the seven references are from December 31st or later. A search using Google, after clicking "news", yields 18 news stories dating from December through January. Further, it's still trending six months later. This is an ongoing conversation, not a single event.ErykahHuggins (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed vote, see below It would be pretty embarrassing to delete this article exactly when the discussion about #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen also outside Twitter appears to have been reactivated. Michelle Goldberg's 4-page article Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars, which was published in The Nation on 29th January 2014, started this round of discussion and it has already received tens of off-Twitter responses, in addition to reblogs and mentions. See e.g. Huffington Post 29th January Why The Problem Of Online Toxicity Is Not The Same Thing As White Feminists vs. Non-White Feminists or Wire, also 29th January The Incomplete Guide to Feminist Infighting. --Ronja (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gilgongo's rationale for keeping is the best delete rational I've heard in a long time: "I say keep because there are few other places such knowledge would be recorded other than on Wikipedia." This is a hashtag, or more generously, a small online issue that's reported on by some blogs and I guess an article out of The Nation. This is like running headfirst into the bar we set for notability. That it's mentioned in "18 news stories" is a strong indication of how this fails the most basic of our notability criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams, respectfully I think you may have misunderstood me. Eighteen was the number of stories in Google search on that particular day. There have probably been hundreds of news stories, not to mention countless blog entries. A search within huffingtonpost.com alone yields 150 hits. A search of jezebel.com yields 874, and feministe.us 2,320.ErykahHuggins (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did. All those "news" hits still fail our GNG That your best reference is more huffingtonpost stories only reinforces my point. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Even if the hashtag is mentioned in several articles, I don't think it has lasting notable in itself. It relates to a general debate about race and feminism; and to the degreee some part of the discussion started by the tag has lasting, notable effect, it can be included in relevant articles: feminism; black feminism or others. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Merge as an alternative vote, since there now are several votes and suggestions for merge, and I am fine with that; as also indicated in my first vote above. Iselilja (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons that ErykahHuggins and Ronja already articulated. This is an ongoing event with news articles published mere days ago. WP:BLP1E is about people, not sure it's relevant here. I see 33 articles in Google News now. There are a significant number of independent and reliable sources covering the hashtag. Phette23 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Black Twitter for going against WP:BLP1E, which bars "mono-notable" articles like this from being created. As Iselilja says, this subject doesn't appear to have legs. The fact that it's still trending on Twitter is irrelevant, as are the number of blog posts, since both sources generally fall afoul of WP:SPS.Eladynnus (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Phette23 has suggested, doesn't WP:BLP1E only apply to "biographies of living persons"?ErykahHuggins (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it cited in news events such as spree killings and an article about the flying penis prank pulled on president Putin several years ago. The text of the policy talks about "events" as well as individuals, so the policy covers more than just people. Eladynnus (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS may also be applicable. All of the citations in the article come from a two day period (January 27-29). Eladynnus (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a lot of reliable sources there for something up for AfD. And wp:BLP1E is, of course, irrelevant because it doesn't refer to a living person. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete It's one event within a larger issue about which little can be said. It should probably be a section of an article on intersectionality or Black feminism or Black twitter. Not certain which to propose but there's not enough noteworthy about it for it to be its own article. SPACKlick (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Black Twitter, it doesn't appear to be notable on its own yet. No need for a separate article at this time. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This debate has been going on since at least the 1960's according to Feminism#Civil rights movement and anti-racism. This means that this hashtag is a minor issue which could be or should be part a much better article. There is an article, Black feminism which seems to be a valid target. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (change of vote) The information in this article is worth saving and augmenting, but a separate article is not necessary. The most logical merge target IMO would be Black Twitter. --Ronja (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I think a merge and redirect to Black Twitter would be a good solution. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Black Twitter has a perfect place for a merge with this paragraph

Manjoo cited Brendan Meeder of Carnegie Mellon University, who argued that the high level of reciprocity between the hundreds of users who initiate hashtags (or "blacktags") leads to a high-density, influential network[9] (one notable example being Mikki Kendall's #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen ).

SPACKlick (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Black Twitter. Alternatively, weak keep and re-assess notability later, perhaps in a second AfD nomination. There are lots of sources, but none establishes notability "beyond a relatively short news cycle", which at present is impossible. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:31, 9 February 2014 (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.