Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Lives Matter

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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lives Matter

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG- did not find any additional sources in google news or google books. The only sources not from the Blue Lives Matter site itself refer to an advertising campaign by Tactical Magic, not the site. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a quick Google search revealed numerous reliable sources. sst✈ 05:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an organization it appears to lack notability, as a phrase it appears to fall foul of WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding how one could possibly !vote delete given there are news articles in BBC Business Insider MSNBC, LA Times etc and so on. Seems textbook WP:SNOW. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: Those articles are discussing either an advertising campaign by Tactical Magic or a hashtag- none of them are about the organisation this article is about. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for rewrite not delete. JMWt (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible there could be an article here that passed WP:GNG if it was about something different that happens to share the name. That doesn't change my negative opinion of whether the current article (which is about something different to that mentioned in these sources) can pass WP:GNG. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these are different thing: the reports I referred to above are about activity under the slogan "Blue Lives Matter", and there is an organisation set up under that name - presumably a lot of the activities have either been run by the organisation or the organisation has been set up in response to the actions. Either way, clearly there is a lot of fluff on the current page, but it could be rewritten to describe "the movement" with a reference to the organisation. And, I note, the non-profit organisation you are claiming is not notable is itself has been referenced in buzzfeed on Yahoo News and probably elsewhere. The organisation therefore likely meets the WP:GNG anyway. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I found a few more sources: one from the Huffington Post ([1]) and one from the Philadelphia Magazine, a more regional source ([2]). Of note is the fact that both sources are critical of Blue Lives Matter. I also found two New York State representatives who offered support for Blue Lives Matter: [3] and [4]. The Blue Lives Matters website also contains a listing of some more of their media coverage: [5] (a lot of the sources are either local or come from websites like Pentrist, but there might be some more sources demonstrating notability). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Formally voting keep due to coverage in reliable sources. Also, from the available sources, it appears that Blue Lives Matter can refer to a phrase commonly used in protests and on Twitter, a pro-law enforcement campaign, and the organization that offers aid to police officers and their families. All of these subjects are heavily interconnected and I doubt it would be possible to truly separate them without a major loss of context, so its most logical to cover them in the same article. I think it would make the most sense for the article to be primarily about the overarching campaign since this is what the majority of the sources cover, but to also give due coverage to the slogan and organization. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Lives Matter. Curro2 (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty adding sources. May need cleanup as to whether it refers to the campaign, the organization, the slogan, or all three. Definitely needs additional material on criticism and support of phrase used as a reaction to Black Lives Matter. However, deletion is not cleanup. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search gives plenty of reilable sources that could be used to improve the article.78.145.111.217 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG: WaPo, Quad Cities, Palm Coast Observer, MSNBC, New York Post, HuffPo, USA Today, and KTLA. And that was just on the first two pages of a News search. Spirit of Eagle's point about a unified article is also spot on, imho. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 15 January 2016 (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.