Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist Hulk (2nd nomination)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Hulk

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

Minor Twitter parody account with most sources only from sources dealing with a specific political ideology. There are other, more general sources, but not every Twitter account ever mentioned on the Internet is worth a page. In addition, a lot of these sources were about its author listing food banks, which should be on a hypothetical article on her, rather than her creation. Past arguments for keeping this article included "because it combines a hypermasculine character with feminism" and "one of the most notable memes of the 2010s". The first reason is not a reason to preserve any article, and the second is patently false. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As was demonstrated last month when this article was brought to AfD and kept, this article meets WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. (See Boston Globe, NPR, Salon, Bust, Ms. magazine) The account's efforts to help women find infant formula and other resources during the government shutdown were a frequent topic of her tweets and were coordinated from the site feministhulk.net. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:gobonobo. Subject of article has received significant coverage in many reliable sources. Techtacular (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (WP:SNOW) - Nominating this so soon after its previous AfD was closed with consensus to keep doesn't make sense. It looks to follow from an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative. A couple of the !votes at the previous discussion weren't stellar, but I stand by my "Gobonobo's sources look to demonstrate sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Just left AfD two months ago and no new evidence is raised to warrant overturning the consensus. (Such as, at the very least, addressing Gobonobo's series of links, which many considered significant coverage last time.) Procedural close as a waste of our energies. Alternatively, please withdraw your nom. – czar 15:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per the consensus at the prior AfD and gobo sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) This is an article on a twitter account, when it should be behind the person on the twitter account, as per the norm on Wiki. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article should be about the person, you're actually advocating for "keep and rename/refocus". Also, there's no such "per the norm on Wiki". See Category:Twitter accounts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:04, 2 August 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.