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, no prejudice against a merger or title change. (non-admin closure) The overwhelming community consensus here is against total extermination, with a few suggesting that any problem with the current state of affair could be solved through a merger, title change, or good ol' editing. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weinstein effect[edit]

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

Nothing but a WP:NEO Majority of sources in this article have no mention of a Weinstein effect Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with #MeToo, possibly under a third, better title (~~Sexual harassment in the workplace in the United States?~~). A lot of people have been affected by this social trend (online and off), and this affects the perception of the next allegedly horny villain. Weinstein is one of them, but not the first, last or most famous. Seems undue to tie him so strongly to these other four thousand or so scandals, especially if it's not caught on as the common title in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the text here is pretty good and should be preserved, but the article's function is largely redundant to the #MeToo article as well as others, such as the poorly-named "2017 Westminster sexual scandals" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to, drumroll please, .......... Harvey Weinstein. Quis separabit? 23:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content into an appropriate article. This is a neologism without adequate WP:RS. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There's a merge request in progress and that's the proper venue for this.LM2000 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While my keep here is procedural, I opposed the merge proposal on Me too. As others have said, the Weinstein effect is independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – "Weinstein effect" is clearly defined as the reaction the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. In fact, the article's title could be "Reactions to the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations", since all of the articles cited frame recent the allegations as a reaction to the allegations against Weinstein (and if they don't they shouldn't be included). However, I think the title "Weinstein effect" fulfills WP:CONCISE, though I'd be open to alternatives. ^Falling_Gravity 01:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Weinstein effect" is how the sources refer to it, so it's the appropriate title. SilkTork (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added a reference to this CBS News article to clarify the definition in the article. ^Falling_Gravity 02:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Weinstein effect, described in its article intro as "a phenomenon where allegations of sexual harassment and assault against celebrities are publicized and trigger responses from companies and institutions." The #MeToo, is a hashtag intended to build awareness without being coerced into names or details. Its spread is a result of topic #1, but it's a more specific movement. And some instances of #MeToo revelations might related to some instances of the Weinstein effect, but they're definitely not the same movements. So I'm against moving it to the #MeToo article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeDisneylover95 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was doubtful at first, but after reading the article and the sources, this is an obvious keep. Well sourced, and within Wikipedia notability guidelines. This is a different topic to the Me Too article, as it is dealing with a different aspect of the Weinstein incident. Indeed, Me Too is one aspect of the Weinstein effect, but it's not the only one. The Weinstein effect is a reflective, encyclopedic and documented study of the effect of the revelation of Weinstein's sexual abuse, which will have a lasting impact on society. Me Too is a social media event, which many of us shared or took part in, and has a social interest, but is not on the same scale or as encyclopedic or notable as the topic of this article. I think both are worth having, though for different reasons. If there was to be any merging (which I don't think is necessary or useful), it would be Me Too to be merged with the Weinstein effect, as an example of that effect. SilkTork (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As both deletion and merge discussions are taking place here I have put this page as the target on the Merge tag. SilkTork (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete: Just noticed that the article has recently been turned into a largely bullet-point list that changes the paragraph-style presentation of previous versions. This really changes the utility of the article into something even more similar to the list we had over at the MeToo article. This is essentially double work.70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A bit iffy in that I think it needs a bit of work (and maybe, just maybe) a rename. But it does seem to be notable. and refers to events that do not just involve Weinstein.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have to merge the content onto one of those two articles, we should keep "Weinstein effect". Anywikiuser (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iirc, MeToo exploded due to the Weinstein effect, not the other way around, so merging to there would not work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Silence Breakers That's the title I couldn't think of for my merge vote above. It's perfect, I reckon. And Al Franken and the National Reckoning would make a damn fine band name. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Silence Breakers would expand the scope of the article to all of 2017 and even back into 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to the idea, but that would really change the article's nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And #MeToo's, too. But not in a destructive way. Just all the essentially same stories under one common umbrella term of the year, then trimmed of redundancies. Potentially libelous lists as these should be watched closely, and it's twice as hard to watch two things closely. If we fit those cheeky Brits in, it could be thrice as simple and straightforward, while naming every single name and deed we've named so far. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we were doing up until yesterday when the article got locked. Of course, I agree that the double/triple/quadruple work being done on multiple articles is a waste of time and effort.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the most logical place to for an inclusive workplace is one where we can discuss all sorts of contemporary silence breaking, without any examples standing out as weird or unwanted for not using the hashtag, drawing inspiration from Weinstein or getting involved in British governance. Sometimes people just don't say anything till it's brought up, whatever "it" is. As long as it's about sex, revelation and fame from here on, I think it's a job for The Silence Breakers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the general phenomenon is not limited to the hashtag. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep but possibly rename. The month-long news story of sexual harassment/assault claims and subsequent resignations is clearly notable. I'm not at all convinced "Weinstein effect" is the correct title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A tangible phenomenon and usage of the name is widespread enough to keep the article at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of a global reckoning against sexual assault/misconduct is clearly borne out in the sources that discuss the trend. When an article contains many examples, as this one does, many and most of the sources will only discuss the isolated case and not the trend, but there are close to a dozen sources in the article that discuss the overall trend. Many of these, including the first five cited sources specifically call this trend the "Weinstein effect", but I wrote this a month ago and as the event is still unfolding, the terminology may change, but that's a matter for talk page discussion, not deletion. The article should be reverted back to its prose format, which was smarter and written about broad generalizations across industries rather than listing every single accusation, which was once compiled on Metoo and was eventually removed ostensibly for insurmountable lack of BLP protections and because we are an encyclopedia, not a directory of allegations. czar 12:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have indicated, there's been in-depth, sustaining coverage of this topic such that a stand-alone article is merited. If it's not the most appropriate term, that can be discussed in a RM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has been used by several well-known publications, including USA Today (1), The Boston Globe (2), Newsweek (3), and CBS News (4). Mewtwowimmer (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussions above. Article has clear quality and notability above an expected or necessary threshold. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly merge or redirect. The term "Weinstein effect" might not be notable, but the news event in question is definitely notable (even if nothing more happens in 2018, which I judge unlikely), and the material currently on this page is a decent starting point if nothing else. —Kodiologist (t) 02:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The effect is highly notable. Oppose merge to either Me Too (hashtag) or Harvey Weinstein. The article has a high overlap with Me Too (hashtag), but not complete, since numerous people in the Weinstein effect article weren't outed on Twitter, and even more people who tweeted the hashtag weren't talking about anyone in the Weinstein effect article. Similarly, now that multiple notable politicians are stepping down, it's not at all clear that Harvey Weinstein is the most notable person affected by the effect. Would not be against a rename, if a more popular name for the effect is shown. --GRuban (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The large overlap with Me Too (hashtag) does bother me, however I tink it is a bit early to decide how to organize this information right. There are several discussions going on and I may look into this later. For now just keep. The term and effect are notable and the best info organization will become clearer over time. gidonb (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. An encyclopedia has a higher mandate than to pander to the dizzy denizens of the kangeroo court of social media inquisition (the fast declining mainstream publications that shamefully follow and help foster this witchhunt mentality are also invalid as far as any reasonable person is concerned). This so-called "effect" can either be discussed on the Weinstien scandal page, or it doesn't need to exist at all. Alialiac (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2017 (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.