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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Bild Sexism (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)

Doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. WP:GNG Only two articles, both from Jan 22/23 Capitalismojo (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominator. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the articles is a write up in The Guardian, and the other confirms regular exchanges on Twitter between Bild's editor Kai Diekmann and the campaign. I have also added an "impact" section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is one article in The Local and one from the Guardian. The Guardian is merely reporting the Locals story. From WP:ORG: "For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple." Capitalismojo (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian followed No More Page 3 for years [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], the article on Stop Bild Sexism is a follow-up, they are not "merely reporting the Local's story". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect Bild#Criticism The one bullet point there appears sufficient already. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Material sufficient for the bullet point in Bild, but not a stand-alone. Merge/redirect also acceptable. — James Cantor (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Bild per above (insufficient notability for a stand-alone article) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Bild, barring the discovery of any new sources. It's not clear whether this passes GNG on its own, and essentially the whole article can comfortably fit in the criticism section of the paper's article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This will never, ever be notable enough to attain its own article. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Never, ever"? What, even until the world stops turning Burklemore1? Gosh. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logically yes, because who will reflect to this in a couple of years time? No one. I have seen petitions and Facebook posts attract more attention which never attain their own article. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logically no, because without a crystal ball no one can say a campaign / person / anything else will never, ever be notable enough to attain its own article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• merge google shows little independent reporting. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep - It looks like there are now 4 sources cited in the article that are specifically about this campaign. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep or merge - there are reliable sources there and this is notable. Ogress _smash! 01:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a start article, and there seem to be adequate secondary sources: The Guardian, Süddeutsche Zeitung, The Local, The European, and the German Women's Council. Sarah ^(talk) 02:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually "The European" is written by the organization's leaders, it would not be considered "secondary", the German Womens Council is an advocacy group recapitulating the press release from Jan., again not solid secondary source. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The German Women's Council supports the campaign; they're not just repeating a press release, just as the Guardian isn't simply copying The Local. These are separate, independent sources, and we would probably find more German sources if we had time to look. Sarah ^(talk) 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as non-notable. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing User:James Cantor's comment, WP:NOTNEWS applies here, as all the sources cover one news event about SBS. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bild#Criticism already has room for this in sufficient detail. The level of detail in this article violates WP:DUE and WP:SOAP as none of the other critics of Bild get this much detail. -- Callinus (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge As per Ogress Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've found a few more German sources:
  • the NDR state broadcaster reported on 7 Nov 2014,
  • Meedia (media news) on 11 Nov 2014,
  • Südkurier on 11 November,
  • InFranken on 12 Nov 2014,
  • Nürnberger Nachrichten / Nürnberger Zeitung on 13 Nov 2014,
  • Lead-Digital on 13 Nov 2014,
  • EMMA (national women's magazine) on 16 Nov 2014,
  • taz (national newspaper) on 22 Jan 2015,
  • Huffington Post on 11 June 2015.
  • There was also a mention in the Malta Independent (8 March 2015). Together with the sources presently cited in the article, I think there is enough here to push this across the notability threshold. Andreas JN466 00:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are popular social media campaigns and hashtags popping up every day, most which get some kind of mention in the media as well since there are so many outlets. Even if this just pinched in to the notable side, it's likely to be a forgotten topic after a year or so, an example of recentism. To have some standards, only the most notable campaigns and hashtags should be kept like Black Lives Matter which is on a completely different scale. --Pudeo' 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are mostly interviews, self-published information and brief re-reports of the same campaign summary. WP:NOTNEWS requires enduring notability of a topic, but criticism of BILD journalism is as old as the BILD itself - this is just one campaign with temporary publicity among many. It should not be ignored, but it is already covered with all relevant details in the main article. GermanJoe (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has expanded significantly since the nomination and early votes. Unless we are saying German-language sources don't count, this easily meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The campaign has received coverage from its inception up through this summer, so it is also enduring. gobonobo ^{+ c} 09:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Added articles found by Andreas to further reading section. Pinging editors who have called for delete / merge in light of changes since nomination. Sammy1339 @Hisashiyarouin, James Cantor, Rhododendrites, FreeKnowledgeCreator, Burklemore1, Staszek Lem, Chess, Callinus, Pudeo, and GermanJoe: --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Changing my merge vote as the new sources demonstrate that the subject passes GNG by a depressingly wide margin, and merging would create an awful mess. Kudos to those who put in a lot of effort on this article. Also @The Vintage Feminist: you can't ping someone by linking the talk page. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know how to ping a user page when it's a red link. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinking will still send a ping. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for the ping. Although the new articles are helpful, they still do not seem to be enough to overcome WP:NOTNEWS. I still recommend delete/merge. — James Cantor (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

→ Weak keep Good work with the German sources, which I couldn't read into but the write-up appears fine. Still Cantor's worries also makes sense: Unless the campaign actually made some change, the notability is still rather unremarkable. I'm gonna be slightly more optimistic than him though, as things are still in progress, it appears.野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2015 (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.