Deletion of YesAllWomen

Comment: Fails to meet  on its own
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING)

Comment: I really, ''really'' don't like the idea of full articles for individual Twitter hashtags.  It is an abomination against all that is encyclopedic.  However, this has satisfied the requirements of the |GNG.  If there's no  |lasting news coverage, then we can merge it into an appropriate article.  Ask me again in six months how I feel about this article, and I might support a merge proposal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LASTING)

Comment: Per nominee's suggestion that it fails , this is a recent subject (2-3 weeks old), and I think it's too soon to assess whether it had a lasting effect. Meanwhile, general notability guidelines suggest a presumption of notability based on the very significant coverage in many very well known reliable sources cited in the article. I think deletion based on  or , in this case, will require a longer period with which to assess the subject in a historical context. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/27/how-yesallwomen-became-trivial-a-noble-hashtag-loses-its-bearings.html This Daily Beast column, which makes the argument three days after its inception that the hash tag had "jumped the shark", also acknowledges that "#YesAllWomen isn’t just a hashtag; it’s a social media movement", suggesting that that there may be some effect distinct from the initial hashtag creation. I think time will make this clearer, one way or the other
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:LASTING||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: It appears that this article has been mentioned by a news organization, and may promote |single purpose accounts that contribute to this discussion. I've added the appropriate tag. The specific article is http://jezebel.com/theres-a-battle-going-on-over-the-wikipedia-page-for-y-1586704111 . Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: ask me again in a month. I'm not incredibly fond of an article about a hashtag, particularly since hashtag activism tends to be, by its nature, fleeting in both popularity and impact. That said, this one has received enough coverage and attention to meet , but it's too soon to say whether it will also meet . I also have concerns about whether coverage of this topic can ever be truly neutral, as there already seem to be a lot of problems with , but that's not so much of a keep/delete argument as a general observation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LASTING||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Whether this subject will meet  is something that can be determined in the future. #YesAllWomen has catalyzed discussions about misogyny and there has been  up through this week in national publications including http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/05/the-insane-and-hopeless-logic-of-yesallwomen-critics/ The Washington Post, http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/ct-all-men-can-balancing-20140605,0,6735320.column Chicago Tribune, and http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/yes-isla-vista-was-gender-based-hate-crime MSNBC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: Does not meet , , nor . Not eligible for merge with 2014 Isla Vista killings as that article is already at a point where , which is a guideline, recommends splitting out content, rather than folding new content in. — &#123;&#123;U&#124
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:GNG||WP:NOR||WP:SIZERULE)

Comment: Meets  with international coverage in multiple well-known, widely distributed publications. Whether it has lasting effect is as yet unproven either way, but  is not a reason for deleting: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LASTING)

Comment: It obviously meets the GNG as it stands currently and is still receiving significant coverage.  '''Trout''' the nominator because  is not a reason to delete the article currently.  is not a way/reason to preemptively delete articles just because they're something that doesn't have lasting coverage '''because it hasn't had time to receive lasting coverage yet.''' Additionally, as Joe Decker points out above, the proposed merge target already hits sizerule
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING)

Comment: Do not merge, as 2014 Isla Vista killings is already at a point where , which is a guideline, recommends splitting out content, rather than folding new content in. This is a sensible editorial cut point for a |spinout article whether or not it meets WP:GNG.  (I happen to think it clearly does, as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZERULE||WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: Does not meet , , nor . Wikipedia is not a news website or database for passing fads. Should not be in its own article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:GNG||WP:NOR)