Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If You Don't Love Me At My

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 delete. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If You Don't Love Me At My

[edit]
If You Don't Love Me At My (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)

WP:NOT#DICDEF - "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them". I failed to see the encyclopedic value in this article which is better off merged into List of Internet phenomena. KingAndGod 07:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All of the coverage is from a span of a few days. Notability requires coverage over a period of time. Not seeing an indication this should have a stand-alone article. Also, the article makes no claim of significance beyond an absurd line of citations, and provides absolutely no explanation, context, or anything else important to an encyclopedia article (AFDNOTCLEANUP, indeed, but this tests the question of whether a data dump of web links staves off CSD). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added more references, including some from yesterday. So the coverage still continues, and it is too early to predict that it will end per WP:RAPID. wumbolo ^^^ 21:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RAPID itself isn't a reason to keep, as it's canceled out by the immediately preceding section (WP:DELAY -- now with a shiny new shortcut, given how often it comes up when responding to WP:RAPID-related keep arguments at AfD). In other words, one cannot ignore the advice not to rush to create articles on new stuff and then expect people to adhere to the subsequent advice not to rush to delete articles on new stuff. Both are indeed good practice, but neither are themselves good reason to keep/delete. Ultimately, how I look at it is that there are times we look past our requirement that subjects get coverage over a span of time to show lasting significance if it's so obvious that they will receive such coverage. Internet memes, however, tend to get a flurry of coverage in a short timespan and only rarely see sustained coverage, so it's not one of those cases when we should look past that requirement. No opposition to userfying/draftifying until lasting significance can be shown, or merging if there's a sensible target. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:38, 21 April 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/If_You_Don%27t_Love_Me_At_My&oldid=837788308"