Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smash Our Stuff

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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Our Stuff

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While notability isn't temporary, I can find no evidence that the coverage this received was significant, or independent. Some posts remain online, and it's more amused notice rather than discussion of what they were doing or why it was significant. The prior AfD had trouble finding a consensus for notability when this was at peak interest, and I can find nothing new that would establish subsequent notability. StarM 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky... Definitely tough as the more reputable sources are hard to come by 15 years later. There was some cable soft news coverage back in the day, but it's all but evaporated. I'd lean towards delete, but feel like this may be biased b/c it wasn't sourced well when we had more available. T (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage I've found which is not dead yet - The Globe and Mail, Cnet, Cnet, Cnet (Cnet is considered reliable), Metro, which is considered unreliable per WP:RSPSRC, MacDailyNews (cites the first one), Engadget, Engadget, Engadget, Bloomberg (under subscription), The Times (under subscription). I believe it's enough to meet WP:GNG. I will add the sources to the article. I understand the nominators concern, as the 'movement' seems to fail WP:EFFECT and be rather sensational, however legal actions taken against the activists (lets call them so) made it impossible for them to continue. It's my opinion and may look like OR, but we can't forget about this leverage. Moreover if the activity made companies use such means of protection, this shows the possible influence such actions could have had. Less Unless (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After spending more time with the topic - i still couldn't find any sources that would back the statements about lawsuits and some details only an involved person could know. The information can be reorganized - I still believe the article should be kept.Less Unless (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:09, 12 April 2021 (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.