Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete, but views are split between keep and merge. I recommend pursuing further discussion to see whether a consensus to merge (in a reduced form) can be arrived at. Personally I don't imagine this having lasting importance outside the context of the campaign.  Sandstein  09:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash[edit]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (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)

Simply not notable. A Facebook group with some weak references does not make a Wikipedia article. Compare with the deletion of Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club (which I back then supported keeping, now having changed my mind) a similarly non-notable Facebook group with a similar range of sources. Stamboliyski (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the group has made news multiple times. I think it should stay.Zamorakphat (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably delete the WaPo article is certainly the strongest source, a lengthy profile of the site in a major national daily. One or two more articles on that level would probably put this in to keep range. And since that article is just up, it may happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject matter has received credible news coverage multiple times (WaPo, Vice, Yahoo, Telegraph, and local papers as well) and meets the notability guideline for WP. Should be kept. Jason Spriggs chat 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think we need another article or so in something weightier than Yahoo or Vice, on the other hand, I suspect that such an article will appear before 7 days go past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surprisingly at that. One would look at the title and write it off, however this has had notable coverage as stated earlier. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Is it notable coverage, though? The deleted article I cited above had basically the same references, replacing the WaPo article with another of similar nature, including flimsy student newspapers and Vice. I think this content is superfluous, and better included in either Sanders' own page or his campaign page. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why don't we just trim this significantly down and merge it into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes? Steven Walling • talk 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I honestly wouldn't be opposed to that either. There is enough here to warrant inclusion. Didn't think of that at first. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Come think of it, that may be a superior solution. A trimmed version would be good. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment it's best to delete the page and move its contents to the Internet memes section of the campaign? I mean the group is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia but not its own page. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think that the group is substantial enough with many subtopics to warrant its own article. Including it in the main campaign article in its entirety would be a possible solution but I believe there is enough of a separation for it to stay as is with another page. Jason Spriggs chat 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep satisfies WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an index of stupid facebook groups. I support the merge. Sparse article could easily fit here. -- Kjerish (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BSDMS is widely recognized as a major contemporary cultural phenomenon, certainly on the scale of many other such communities indexed elsewhere on Wikipedia [3] (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as it stands, this article could quite easily be merged into the campaign article. My concern is that this article is so new that it's hard to tell how big it can get. We could merge it now and end up splitting it again in a week's time. I think for now, it may just be best to let the dust settle. Certainly no case for speedy deletion here. I will keep this on my watchlist and probably advise again at a later date. Jolly Ω Janner 09:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge And heavily redact all the bullshit. Looks like something a middle schooler would submit to FunnyJunk.com. And Jason Spriggs's examples for what he considers to be notable is ridiculous. It's like saying, "Hey! RedState covered it! Therefore, it's notable!" Vice is a stupid tabloid that publishes junk. Yahoo publishes whatever fucktard bullshit they come across, with no journalistic integrity to check them. Furthermore, the sources aren't nearly as ridiculous as this article, for a reason. Knowledge Battle 18:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention that it exists on his campaign page. Possible keep if more notable coverage is found other than the aforementioned WaPo article. --Windy Hands (Frozen Wind public account) (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like it to be noted that the "BernieBros", if you will, are doing some canvassing to prevent a proper consensus from forming here, against Wikipedia rules. Example. Stamboliyski (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately doesn't look like anyone followed through with it. It was posted 24 hours ago and only received two "likes". User:Bedno's appearance is a little odd, but there's nothing here that prevents consensus. Jolly Ω Janner 00:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Might this be a case of NOTNEWS? In any case arguments for GNG being met is weak and there are few credible sources that cover it extensively. A trivial Facebook page which might endure the test of the future (when potential RSes about it pop into existence) but for now it does not merit a standalone. I agree with sentiments echoed above; this should be merged (and heavily trimmed) with the campaign article. Of course if this were a Trump article... Hm... Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is highly relevant documentation of a major cultural shift away from Silent Generation, Boomers, AND Gen-X toward the Millennial Generation that currently dominates labor markets and our cultural core. To delete this article would be a terrible waste of information, not only content specifically but everything about the framing and construction of this article have extremely high cultural relevance and is exactly the kind of thing that Wikipedia was constructed to capture.
  • Keep: This is a highly influential cultural phenomenon with a substantial amount of press coverage, and represents political and social change taking place in the United States today. Z10987 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge with the campaign article. There isn't much depth to the coverage of this, and about half of the article's sources can be discarded as tangential to the subject or simply as unreliable sources. The subject of the article probably fails WP:WEBCRIT because the coverage is mostly superficial. I believe this material could easily be condensed down into about three sentences which would fit snugly in the section already in the campaign article.- MrX 18:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tally, the numbers stands at 7 keep, 3 merge and 4 delete. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. General Ization Talk 19:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tally, the numbers stands at 7 keep, 5 merge and 4 delete. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend ignoring the two above merge votes as they did not provide rationale. That said, I don't have an opinion on this myself. Dustin (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though this is an unusual topic, I don't think it should be deleted as it's pretty significant to the campaign. It ain't 2008 anymore, a Facebook group has much more notability in 2016. Buffaboy talk 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also recommend against keeping a tally. That may influence the outcome (whether people support or oppose deletion / merging). Dustin (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the tally is pointless. These are discussions, not polls. All, but one of the "delete" votes actually include some sort of merging. Rest assured that a closing admin will read all the comments on this page and will probably ignore any votes that have no rationale. This seems to have turned into a discussion on whether to merge with the Bernie campaign article anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 03:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. I wasn't aware that I had to provide a novel rationale for my !vote here, and I don't intend to, as I think the case was made very well by others above. General Ization Talk 03:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. I agree about the tally, but I fail to see the point in excluding votes unless they include their own reiteration of what's already been said. I think it should be condensed and merged into the section I've linked to. I don't believe it can stand on it's own as an article, as it has less than 20 lines of actual content. And ok, it has lots of sources. News articles. A Vice article doesn't automatically bestow importance onto something. And ok, I get the thing about cultural shift millenial meme stuff. But that sounds like the kind of thing to be written about in Internet memes, and not just implied by detailing every Facebook group that breaks 250k. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. As such, it passes WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG, and qualifies for a standalone article. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3]. North America1000 09:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Can Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash Swing the Election?". Vice.
  2. ^ "How Bernie Sanders became the lord of 'dank memes'". Washington Post.
  3. ^ "Bernie Sanders is Going to Win (Because of the Internet)". Daily Kos.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_Sanders%27_Dank_Meme_Stash&oldid=1143705418"