Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't talk to me or my son ever again (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me or my son ever again[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The only source I found after March-August 2016 was this article:

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/best-memes-2016/

and it lists it among several dozen other memes, most of them equally long-forgotten. The meme was only popular for about ten months tops and only received on-and-off coverage for about 150 days, which doesn’t exactly qualify as WP:SUSTAINED in my view. Compare that to, say, No Nut November, which has been around as a term/concept since at least 2011, been popular since 2017, and received coverage for at least a year’s worth of time (November ‘18 to November ‘19). That meme is also connected to multiple significant figures and movements, while this meme just... existed for no easily discernible reason and faded back out of existence pretty quickly. Dronebogus (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no established notability standards for internet memes, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA applies. KidAd (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is not determined by comparing the popularity of this subject with another. It's determined by reliable sources, writing about the subject directly and in detail. This article cites 9 sources, including Slate, the Verge and New York Magazine. Saying that one viral meme is significant because it lasted for twelve months, while another one is insignificant because it lasted for six months, is absurd. They're viral memes, the whole point of them is that they spread quickly and then fade away. Only a few of them get New York Magazine coverage. The editors who compiled this article have done a very good job of documenting the rise and spread of this meme, and the article deserves to stand. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources:

Gabe (March 18, 2016). "The Internet has one simple demand: 'Don't talk to me or my son ever again'". The Daily Dot. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

They cover a lot of random memes so this is pretty much Routine Coverage for them.

^ Jump up to: a b Andrews, Jeff; Horn, Leslie (March 24, 2016). "How 'Don't Talk To Me Or My Son Ever Again' Went Viral". Vocativ. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

I dunno about this, I’ve never heard of this website.

^ O'Donnell, Carey (March 19, 2016). "The "Don't Ever Talk To Me or My Son Again" Meme Is Sweeping the Net". Paper. Paper Communications. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

Counts.

^ Alcantara, Ann-Marie (June 30, 2016). "12 Examples That Explain the "Don't Talk to Me or My Son Ever Again" Meme". PopSugar. Retrieved August 13, 2016.

Entertainment listicle. Not really in-depth coverage.

^ "Here Are The 23 Best 'Don't Talk to Me Or My Son Ever Again' Memes". Smosh. April 2, 2016. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

^ Hendricks, Sara (April 11, 2016). "15 Of The Best "Don't Talk To Me Or My Son Ever Again" Memes You'll Ever See". gURL.com. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

Random lists from entertainment sites, which aren’t reliable sources.

^ Tiffany, Kaitney (August 12, 2016). "What is the meme of the summer?". The Verge. Vox Media. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

I’m gonna go with my gut and say this is not actually in-depth coverage.

^ "You’re the Puppet. Lock Her Up. It’s a Knife.". Slate. December 9, 2016. Retrieved February 28, 2016.

Not in-depth

^ Feldman, Brian (March 22, 2016). "‘Don’t Talk To Me Or My Son Ever Again’: A Guide to a Great Meme". New York. Retrieved August 12, 2017.

Counts.

That’s maybe 2-4 truly in-depth, reliable sources. Not 9. Dronebogus (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, “doing a very good job” is not a subjective reason for keeping an article. Lots of articles about Pokemon were probably written by people who “did a very good job” of it, but that doesn’t mean they were not notable. Editors who want to cover random memes should think about lending their expertise to a site like Know Your Meme. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes — 2-4 in-depth, reliable sources. That establishes notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4, maybe, but 2 maybe not. This topic seems to be right on the border between notable and not notable. However, I still stand by deletion because of the short lifespan and lack of wider impact the meme had. Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Toughpigs and WP:NTEMP. It was agreed to be kept in the previous AfD. Sources in the article are indeed reliable. Article is still good enough to meet WP:WEBCRIT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, don't bother arguing. I'm not interested in looking for an argument or debate in this AfD. I've said what I've said. So, I won't reply from hereon. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Each source in the article is reliable. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 00:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Reliable” is not the same as “proving notability”. Dronebogus (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sourcing here clearly passes GNG, and they are from a period of time far enough apart to sail by any time constraint outlined in WP:N. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass GNG based on the sources provided.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2020 (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.