Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me Too movement (India)

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 speedy keep. Nominator has been indefinitely blocked and for quite-related reasons. The notability of the subject is not in doubt and the article can be subject to routine editorial processes as to weeding out the BLP issues. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me Too movement (India)[edit]

[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)

The article contains strong WP:BLP concerns, the majority of the article is about specific allegations. If all of these BLP issues are rectified, there would be little meaningful content left on the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rewrite: Article can be kept by fixing the BLP violations through rewriting.--PATH SLOPU 07:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rewrite: I also agree with this. I think the movement itself was notable enough to happen in India when it did, and had notable enough social effects, to warrant keeping its own article. It happened nearly a year after the original Me Too movement in the west, independently and spontaneously, and so wasn't immediately tied to what happened in the west; also, it was seen as a groundbreaking social-shift in one of the largest and most conservative, hierarchical societies in the world. It was notable enough to warrant prominent worldly publications (CNN, BBC, etc) to publish articles specifically on it, and they treated it as its own movement. On a public level, it eventually introduced behavioral reforms in many industries (entertainment, journalism, education, etc) and prominent social figures were suddenly in a fearful position of having their indiscretions outed, which seemingly returned power to the 'victims' or 'average people' in a way the society had never seen before. A climate of 'healthy fear and restraint' was introduced to the workplace; It was one of the first real examples of the use of a social tool (the internet) to empower the disenfranchised and bring about a serious change (or at least notable social reflection) in mindset throughout that society. And its effects were far reaching; many industries, class levels, etc were affected and continue to be so.

So I think it's important to keep it as it is a valid and notable social movement, but edit any BLP concerns (within reason - as even in the original Me Too article, personal examples and names were used factually to illustrate points) as needed and make it read more professionally. Rush922(talk) 11:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRush922 If the original article contains BLP issue that isn't grounds for this article to have it, I haven't seen the original article, if it has unsubstantiated claims that could cause libel issues for Wikipedia those claims should be challenged and removed. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 23:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sympathetic to this nomination per WP:TNT but think that editors' time would be better spent re-working the article and addressing the BLP concerns (some listed here) rather than debating the subjects' notability, which is not really in doubt. Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 15 May 2019 (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.