Deletion of Je suis Charlie

Comment: Easily enough  for its own standalone article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It seems to me that the term has got a pretty significant amount coverage. Enough that it would seem to pass . I do think the  argument carries some weight, but probably not enough to override the notability argument. And finally, an  argument; we do have a number of similar articles covering famous phrases (e.g. Hands up, don't shoot, The lady's not for turning
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RECENTISM||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Passes  as others have stated
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: else '''wait''' I think it is already apparent that Je Suis Charlie has taken a life of its own, far bigger than the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and has become a strong statement in favor of freedom of speech. If people are not yet convinced then perhaps we should wait, but for me it already passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is a widely used phrase that our readers will want information about. It passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I have the "Je suis Charlie" image on my userpage, but that is another matter. At this point, it is impossible to say whether "I am Charlie" will have any lasting impact. The Paris attack is barely 12 hours ago, creating this article is absolutely premature. We have wikinews for current events, WP is |not a newspaper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Agree with nominator. The main article (Charlie Hebdo shooting) is sufficient to deal with the topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, hat Wikipedia is not|not an indiscriminate collection of information. Encyclopedias do not have entire articles about such slogans. A section in the Charlie Hebdo shooting article is enough. Else articles on all other kinds of slogans (e.g. "I am Malala") may also crop up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: What we don't need is this AFD as the nomination tells clearly that this was the result of a frustrated merger and so is improper per .  I agree that this is recentism as the whole thing is obviously breaking news but  is obviously a dead letter as the topic was rushed onto the main page immediately.  Time will tell what aspects endure and we should just let the various strands develop without heavy-handed disruption
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: for now. If it blows up, it blows up. But that would be 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: This topic makes little sense without the background of the attack itself. So the content is better in that article. BTW, the votes for Merge and Delete are erge and delete|invalid and should be treated as just merge, while Merge and Redirect is pointless since redirecting is part of merging
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M)

Comment: RGloucester, I'd recommend you to take a breather and just accept that many Wikipedia policies go out the window with these types of slogans. Don't lose any sleep over it and just allow the exceptions. The article doesn't need any reason for inclusion other than the fact that it's a popular slogan. It's an easy vote for keep. It's catchy, it's cool, and people like it. Forget , rystal, lection, ecentism, dvocacy, and . There's simply no need to follow any encyclopedic guidelines when this many people overwhelmingly vote for inclusion. It stays and that's it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:C||WP:E||WP:R||WP:A||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)