Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe the Frog

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 redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Ritchie333's semi-protection remains in force. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe the Frog[edit]

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

Non-notable, flash in the pan meme. A bit of coverage in early April, but no *lasting* in-depth coverage. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and salt~~ A small amount of coverage, but not lasting, so fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Pretty sure this article has been done before (under a different name or on a userpage or draft), which is why I support the salt. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pepe the frog was deleted in January, and Feels good man has been salted since 2008, so Joseph2302 appears to be right. Everymorning talk 16:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. It's not made up and there is a small amount of sources, and it does look like a valid search term. Additionally, having a redirect means nobody is tempted to recreate it with a slightly different title. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept this as an alternative, as long as the redirect was also protected, otherwise it will very quickly be replaced by this article again. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already indefinitely semi-protected the article, believing that it will be continually attacked by meatpuppets adding unsourced content otherwise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet phenomena per Ritchie333 then. It's a plausible redirect, but not worthy of its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and "watch with an eye toward protect"?: I don't think that's a proper motion, but the "salt" seems to be necessary. This isn't the first time the frog has croaked. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or keep: I'd probably rather keep it. There's enough coverage for it - which is unusual for even established memes (even though they're in wide use [because there's not that much to report on even though they're ubiquitous to many]). And if Wikipedia intends to stay relevant and informative on many areas (saying all those that are notable in people's lives/society) it needs to recognize and integrate such. But as the article probably will never be longer than the average stub a redirect would be fine too - but then I think there should be subheaders for each entry on that list so that it can be linked properly (not just for this particular case but also for other Internet phenomena). --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested above - My searches found no evidence this has been covered significantly and notably aside from two results here (Books) and here (News) and everything else News Archive, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NORMIES EAT THE HEAT SKEET 2607:FB90:915:F644:F0A:4D24:FE17:E839 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2015 (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.