Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Know Me movement

You Know Me Movement

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete - Does not meet WP:N standards. The article is based around a trending hashtag, and there's no evidence that it's a real movement. As of right now, the only result for "You Know Me Movement" is this Wikipedia page and an entertainment website called "Plus TV Africa". I'd even recommend a speedy deletion, since it's possible the Wikipedia article might accidentally make it notable. The article amplifies a very quiet and unknown movement based off a popular hashtag. They also had a facebook page, but it seems to have been deleted and wasn't archived. New info has surfaced, see GorillaWarfare's comment. Alex.osheter (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Wow, look at all those citations and references that establish its notability.--Jorm (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review them, you'd be surprised. Alex.osheter (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Noting that I was asked to take a look at this deletion discussion here, but would not consider it canvassing—I believe they're asking since we just interacted quite a bit on a separate set of articles, and I don't believe they asked me because they think I'd be particularly agreeable). The article could definitely use work, but as far as notability goes I think it's alright. There are a couple pretty solid sources, particularly the New York Times source and the Yahoo! one. There are even more sources available that aren't cited in this article yet:

"Trending hashtags" can be (and have been) notable even if they're not "real movements" (whatever that means). I'm not sure what you mean by "The article amplifies a very quiet and unknown movement based off a popular hashtag"—I doubt you're referring to the pro-choice movement as "very quiet and unknown", but I'm not sure who you are referring to.

As an additional note, it's a bit unusual to take an article to AfD when you think it should be speedy-deleted. Normally you would just tag the article with a CSD tag. That said, I think it's for the best that you did bring it here—I suspect the speedy would've been declined. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, of course I was talking about this movement specifically, not the pro-choice movement as a whole. From the sources you've provided, it's possible it could definitely be notable enough to be an article. We'll let other editors vote on this and see. Per this new information, I've removed the "speedy" part, as I now see there's no risk of accidentally making it known (RS have talked about it). I still think it lacks significant coverage, but this may change with new information and as time goes on. In which case, we'll of course keep the article. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]