Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Wolf Moon

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 speedy keep. Snow Keep. The BBC, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune... Shimeru (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Wolf Moon

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

Non notable internet meme, because it is a best selling item on Amazon and celebrities have worn it doesn't make it notable. Cat-five - talk 03:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its notable because it has received significant press coverage. Its not non-notable because its a best-selling item on amazon and celebrities have worn it. Article could be improved though.--Milowent (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsure about supposed press coverage. Notability due to celebrities having donned one is also dubious. Minor memes should be relegated to internet sites that specialize in such things. --theshizzler (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the topic is evident per the numerous sources which demonstrate the extensive coverage of this topic: BBC, New York Times, books, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage. However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability (Wikipedia:Notable#Notability_is_not_temporary)
  - Do a few references of an internet meme in the news make it notable per that? I'd argue no especially for a non event. Cat-five - talk 16:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been covered in books too and those are not news sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This ubiquitous image is noteworthy for its iconic status. I dare anyone to go to a flea market in America and not find this image on a shirt, hat, license plate, or set of dishes. - Team4Technologies (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really make it notable, it's cheap and easy to make any design, put it on tshirts and coffee mugs and sell it at flea markets.v I forgot to mention in the nom (my bad) but Wikipedia:Notability is the relevant policy I belive. Cat-five - talk 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep covered in published books and reliable news sources. could use some clean-up, but what article doesn't need clean-up? Arskwad (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found. This AFD isn't done right. There is no stuff at the top which normal AFDs have. Dream Focus 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that the script I used to do the nomination was using an old format, it should be fixed now. I don't think formatting would have been a legitimate reason to vote to keep anyway since a few links have nothing to do with the actual nomination other than making it easier to read and find information. Noticed the first part of your vote. Cat-five - talk 21:27, 8 May 2010 (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.