Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 26

What's 9 + 10 – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Has enough sources for inclusion, prematurely speedy-deleted Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse textbook example of non-notable web content. Had no sources at all at time of deletion, only reference was to knowyourmeme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
endorse fair close, and fair enough opinions at AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the only source cited was [1], which is clearly not a reliable source. There were no assertions of significance, the article's only content was a description of the video. Hut 8.5 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Allow Recreation~~ Because Knowyourmeme is reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158#Know_your_Meme, and I've found another mention/source, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/01/9-10-21/ Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the recommendation as this is the nominator and that counts as their vote. It might be helpful to explain how that single source meet the needs of WP:GNG ort is even a WP:RS. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per this (and several similar discussions) Know Your Meme is a user-contributed wiki with some degree of oversight from an editorial staff. This particular entry has not been "confirmed" by the editorial staff, so it's effectively a page on an open wiki. An entry which has been confirmed might not be a terrible source for some information within an article about a meme but it's hardly something to use to demonstrate notability. The discussion you cite does not demonstrate that the site is reliable, only that one person thinks it's reliable. The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog, a very brief post there doesn't establish the notability of a meme. Hut 8.5 13:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy. Knowyourmeme is a reliable source for explanations of the origins of viral online content; I see no discussion to show that inclusion it in is a reliable source for notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Endorse and Salt. There's an extremely low chance of reliable sourcing with this one other than Knowyourmeme. Not notable at all and possibly a vandalism target. --201.53.68.9 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Valid application of WP:CSD#A7, and valid reading of the sentiment expressed in the AfD for a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. If someone had a reasonable objection, it should be discussed for a week. I don't see a reasonable objection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.