Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCKH8: Drop F-Bombs for Feminism

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 redirect to FCKH8. And merge whatever editorial consensus may deem appropriate from the history.  Sandstein  07:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FCKH8: Drop F-Bombs for Feminism

FCKH8: Drop F-Bombs for Feminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article was liking made by someone who watched the video and thought, I should make an article on it. It has no need to exist and has no no special-ness that puts it ahead of other videos controversial like this that do not have articles. Please don't reject on the basis I'm blocking equality or a "anti-feminist", if you want an article just for FCKH8, make one. I mean, even on responses, theres only 1 main response, most of the others are from the person from the company themselves. DJBay123 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the topic was rather notable. The video was discussed at the time on morning news shows, i remember.--Frederika Eilers (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think that it might actually be better to write an article about the website itself, FCKH8, than the video necessarily since the coverage mostly seems to be criticism of the company via their campaign as much as (if not more so) than the video itself. It also looks like they received some coverage over a similar video for the Ferguson shootings, so those two together would likely be enough to show notability for the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Something else to add to this is that these are the same criticisms that were lobbed against them for prior campaigns, so this could probably be better served in one article that contained a criticism section for the company and an overall section that listed their campaigns with a little detail about each one and the accompanying video. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's what I have so far. I still have to write up the criticism section, which will be a generalized summary of the overall criticisms, which are largely the same regardless of the campaign. (This will also include comments from parents of children featured in the article, both good and bad.) This section will include a response section from the company itself, which I figure should be a bit on its own. Hopefully I should finish it soon, but I wanted to post it here so you can see what I mean - this could really be summed up overall in one article considering that the criticisms are really more directed at the company as opposed to the campaign itself. We could probably justify an article for both, but I think that this might be better suited in one overall article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• OK - the article is now at FCKH8. I summed up everything fairly well. Technically this article could stand on its own, but I think that this could also redirect to the company's page. I'll leave it up to this AfD. I've cleaned out the worst of the promotional prose, so what's really left at this point is the synopsis and the criticism section. This is the main reason the page would pass on its own since the criticism of FCKH8 was fairly widespread. I tried to sum this up in the main article for the most part and if this does close as a redirect then some of it could be merged a little more. My main concern - that the criticism is more for the company than the video itself specifically still remain, however. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is kept, it should probably be renamed as "Potty-Mouthed Princesses" since that's the most common name for the video campaign and the video is posted to social media as "Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism". "F-Bombs for Feminism: Potty Mouthed Princesses Use Bad Words for a Good Cause" is a title used during the video, but it's far less commonly used. At the very least the FCKH8 at the beginning of the article is unnecessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to FCKH8. I agree with Tokyogirl79 that it makes more sense to have an article about the organization which touches on this video. Coverage is decent, but per WP:NOPAGE it doesn't look like we need two. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 5 July 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.