Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point

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. Clear consensus to keep the article like the outcome of the last RFD. Participants disagreed with the nominator and think that the subject does meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The worst person you know

[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)

Non-notable, not enough secondary sources on the topic. RteeeeKed 💬📖 16:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. RteeeeKed 💬📖 16:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This article was nominated for deletion last year and not a single participant in the discusison voted for deletion. This article has multiple independent, reliable and secondary sources with significant lasting coverage, it meets the WP:GNG. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy for the deletion of this article. It even got a new example in Vox two months ago, which I just added to the article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's got links for articles in the Guardian and Slate, seems ok Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clickhole This seems like something worth mentioning on the main Clickhole article, but I don't see how it justifies the current paragraph stub. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sure I guess. There are sources on this article, but not enough to justify an entire article on the subject. A sentence or two on the Clickhole article would be fine. RteeeeKed 💬📖 21:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RteeeeKed: On what basis do you think it does not justify an article? The WP:GNG states quite simple that multiple sources are needed. There are at least 2 which suffice the requirement of being reliable, independent, having in-depth coverage and being secondary. On another note, merging into Clickhole would mean the image gets removed because it is no longer allowed if that is not the main subject. Also, I have extended the article a bit by writing about the search for him by the Slate journalist. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at WP:NFCC, and I don't see a reason why we can't have the image on Clickhole. And taking a look at WP:MERGETEST, the answer to both questions is no, so a merge is acceptable. RteeeeKed 💬📖 18:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm indeed, I seem to be mistaken with regard to WP:NFCC. But the fact that a merge is allowed does not mean we should pursue one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have another reason why we can't merge? RteeeeKed 💬📖 22:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Merged information is notoriously hard to Google. This page got over 13000 pageviews last month, so there is clearly interest in it. However, in case we merge it into the history section of ClickHole, it will be much harder to find and is most likely predominantly going to be read by people who are interested in reading about the history of ClickHole. The people who were looking for this will probably go elsewhere (such as the sources used here), but individual sources aren't as comprehensive as the Wikipedia article that aggregrates mutliple of them. It's in the best interest of the WP:READER to keep it as a separate page. PhotographyEdits (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons noted above (previous discussion, sources, google-ability). Also, I added a bit more about the image as a standalone meme and commentary on the article. Wracking ^💬 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wracking Thanks for your contributions! PhotographyEdits (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last year's AfD. There's in-depth coverage in The Guardian and Slate, as well as frequent references in other media, e.g. Politico, Rolling Stone, and Vulture. Endwise (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian isn't in-depth coverage of the actual article, though, the coverage is primarily about the person who is the subject of the photo. There is essentially no discussion about the clickhole article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything stated above.★Trekker (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2023 (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.