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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle asian traits[edit]

[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)

Just a facebook group which becomes famous by doing memes on facebook and got article into nytimes and bbc. Article seems like an advertisement. Point out your views. AD ^Talk 19:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article about a Facebook group? I assumed this would be an easy candidate for deletion, probably sourced to slim blurbs or bare interviews. I was wrong. Both the NYT and BBC provided feature-length treatments with background, context, and analysis. Not good enough? The Atlantic. The New Yorker. NBC. Slate. The Daily Dot. Probably more, I stopped looking. Is it silly, and a little weird, for a Facebook group to get that sort of coverage? Sure. But that isn't a policy based cause for deletion, and I don't see anything else that would be. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely agree with Squeamish Ossifrage - I fully expected to suggest deletion prior to digging into the references. It easily meets the WP:WEBCRIT requirement of "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Jmertel23 (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this discussion ends with a "keep" determination, the article should probably be moved to "Subtle Asian Traits" (capitalized as it is a title). I don't want to move it now, as I don't know if that will cause an issue with this discussion? Jmertel23 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agreed. Page moves during an AFD are technically permitted, but sometimes cause drama, so I assumed the move could wait until discussion was complete (and assuming it survives this process). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what an interesting set of reads. GNG & WEB both more than satisfied. Move obviously legitimate post-AfD close. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG. Plenty of IRS for WP:NEXIST. Not at all sure if any WP:BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While a stub. it has plenty of mention in secondary sources to be notable. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2019 (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.