Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm not sad today

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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sad today

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

I previously speedily deleted this per WP:A7, but since it has been restored following a request for undeletion and subsequent restoration, I am nominating this article for deletion. After searching for anything that would help make this article pass WP:GNG, I came up short (nothing in the media regarding this "movement"). Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - I did the restoration to give the requestor a chance to come up with some references, but this is pretty much the outcome I expected. LadyofShalott 01:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in third party sources means this fails WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to locate sources sufficient to pass notability concerns. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it sounds like a great idea, it still needs to be documented in other outlets first. BigJim707 (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the name is very generic which means that there's a lot of Ghits that have nothing to do with this. Sifting through the results does not result in any indication that there is coverage in reliable sources (yet), so it fails WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm Not Sad Today was trademarked recently and, if you google it, their tumblr and facebook are the first things to pop up. It has helped many people and though the resources may not be considered reliable it is clearly notable if you look through the amount of people who know of it. Not all of them are from Tumblr, they have their facebook fans as well, and celebrities have tweeted about them (such as Dominic Barnes from Glee). Really it is a great cause and has helped many who have gone through rough times, I believe there is no reason that this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.16.161 (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is something of a jargon term here on Wikipedia. There are some pretty specific criteria used to determine it. A lot of celebrities tweeting about the page is an indication of growing notice, but it is not WP:Notability. Has this been written up and published in any newspapers or magazines? Has someone in the world of psychology noted it and discussed its possible effects in a journal article? These are the sorts of things we look for to determine if something should have an article here. Being a worthy cause is not sufficient. LadyofShalott 12:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2011 (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.