Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bring Back the Bees

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Back the Bees

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

Not a sufficiently notable hashtag activism campaign; the term is only used by advertising campaigns and not mentioned in discussion of physical demonstrations.

A redirect to Friends of the Earth may or may not be appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep-I added sources covering the campaign, including USA Today coverage of the issue, Chicago Tribune and Washington Post coverage of the effects of the campaign.Trackinfo (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on improvements made by Trackinfo Burley22 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I agree that Trackinfo's improvements already include enough sourcing to justify a keep, I've added further sources from Lifehacker, CNN, Forbes, HuffPost, Popular Science, and even Snopes. I've also added further text to the page, particularly from the Snopes article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2017 (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.