Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist Hulk

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. Of note is that some of the rationales for deletion herein are subjective, such as "Obvious reasons" and "Not an encyclopedic content", and are not guideline- or policy-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Hulk

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

Not notable at all / Fails to show notability KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been the subject of significant coverage by several major news organisations including NPR, the Huffington Post, and boston.com's Boston Globe ideas section. I'll be honest here, WP:IDONTLIKEIT either but that is not a reason for deletion and it clearly passes WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No different from any other Twitter parody account - No evidence of notability to warrant an article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010:Can you explain how the coverage this subject has received fails GNG? Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bar the Huffington Post the rest are pretty crappy sources and I'm surprised you consider them fine, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. Obvious reasons. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Twitter parody account. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic content. aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 22:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. At the article's talk page, an IP supported a delete and a user supported a keep. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've kept notable Twitter account articles before. It's unusual in that it blends feminist rhetoric with a hypermasculine comic book hero. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. (See Boston Globe, NPR, Salon, Bust, Ms. magazine) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 10:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has enough reliable references though I suppose it will eventually lose its notability as time marches on and another form of social media makes people wonder if Twitter and 8-track-tape players existed at the same time. Bfpage |leave a message 20:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gobonobo's links show that the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The above deletion arguments have no backing in policy. czar ⨹ 01:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage from multiple different sorts of references. — Cirt (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gobonobo's sources look to demonstrate sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the most notable memes of the 2010s and passes WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 17:34, 11 May 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.