RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/The Triggering

The Triggering | Result: Delete

The Triggering (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Doubts about the relevancy of what is essentially a twitter hashtag have been raised on the talk page Pizzameister (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
2. We don't need to document every reactionary hashtag. Though this was a better attempt at discussion than just adding to our never ending GG timeline.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
3. I vote delete for Weaseloid reasons. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 06:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
4. As much as I love pointing and laughing at neoreactionaries, this just doesn't seem relevant enough. Vulpius (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Was such a damp squib that it'll be forgotten by next month. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
6. We don't need an article on every ephemeral hashtag. We don't even have one on #notallmen, which was much bigger than this eyeblink. Flannan Isle (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. A short mention on the Timeline of Gamergate is all this deserves. Typhoon (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

   Not sure it's really Gamergate as such. I mean, it's obviously much the same cluster of idiots, but not identically the same and not really a GG action - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• I'd never heard of this before. Having read the article, I still don't know what it is/was. It looks like the article was written for people already familiar with this campaign, telling them what they probably already know. If the intent was actually to explain something to readers not already familiar with this thing, I don't think it's succeeded. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• I find myself unconvinced, though it's hilariously stupid - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• It's not a big or important thing, but it's missional insofar as documenting the actions of wacky hatemongering anti-SJW types is missional, which seems to be the case. The article itself is of reasonable quality although it's not Samuel Johnson Prize material. If there's a viable merge candidate, then merge, but it's not quite GG (maybe some other SJW topic? Trigger warning?). Does Lauren Southern "deserve" an article? Annquin (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've just seen it's in the "clogs" wigo page. Maybe that's all that we have to do for coverage. Flannan Isle (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• I don't mind keeping it, I think... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)