Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (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. General consensus to keep. A merger discussion may be started on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 00:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. UA757 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At first I agreed with you, then I looked at the sources. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), this topic does seem to be one that has been discussed at some length in multiple reliable sources, all of whom considered it a significant subset of a very notable event. The sourcing is extensive, and the sources are not simply a small special interest. While rather strange, this has been established as notable content. As such, it should be kept. Fieari (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. If you are going to open another AfD for an article a couple of months after the last one was closed with a clear "don't delete" result, you should probably provide more of a statement than a simple "does not meet the guideline". What has changed in those two months? Why should it be deleted now? If there is something different here that I am missing, please do let me know. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per arguments made at Bernie Bros and arguments by User:Fieari and User:Ajraddatz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This topic has substantial coverage, and it reasonably sourced. --Dcirovic (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a bloody Facebook group. --Frip the bip! (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Thriley (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 14:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Social media in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign per Plantdrew. CookieMonster755 ^📞 ^✉ ^✓ 22:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Social media in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. That's what is notable. A substantial number of the sources are about social media and memes in the presidential campaign, with BSDMS mentioned as an example of the phenomenon. Plantdrew (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are you kidding me. This is ridiculous! Thesqrtminus1^(talk) 13:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Social media in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, per se, is not likely to be notable post-2016. See WP:NTEMP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:22, 19 May 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 those listed below. Also, some of the delete !votes above are entirely subjective, and do not qualify deletion per Wikipedia guidelines or policies, such as "it's a bloody Facebook group" and "Are you kidding me. This is ridiculous!" See also WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:!VOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Can Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash Swing the Election?". Vice.
"How Bernie Sanders became the lord of 'dank memes'". Washington Post.
"Bernie Sanders is Going to Win (Because of the Internet)". Daily Kos.
The Guardian

Keep The article has gotten substantial coverage in sources independent of the subject. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – While the subject is of some significance, it could be better covered with an appropriate level of detail as part of Social media in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. Graham (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pretty surprising, but this article has enough notable sources talking about it to have notability. And don't claim bias, I'm not feeling the Bern. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Facebook page has enough notable sources in the article. Most Facebook Groups lack any of these notable sources, including my favorite: "Theme Park Simulation Games". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2016 (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.