Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very erotic very violent (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. Sandstein 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very erotic very violent[edit]

[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)

Little to no lasting notability, meme is not inherently notable.

Article's sourcing is poor and outdated. Many sources are either dead links, or are not reliable (such as "Blog China" and Southern Metropolis Daily). The few sources that are more reliable (such as United Daily) can be added to this incident's section on the main Xinwen Lianbo page, where it is already explained.

Although Xinwen Lianbo is not a great source on its own, the influence of this individual event on the credibility of Chinese state-run and state-sponsored broadcasters (as the article claims) appears to be have been extremely minimal after the initial popularity of this internet phenomenon around 2007/2008. K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability does not expire. The worst case would be merger to Internet censorship in China and so deletion is not appropriate per WP:ATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. Reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very erotic very violent still apply. WP:Linkrot is reason neither to delete the sources nor this article. No compliance with WP:Before. What we have here is an example of language-related systemic bias in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NTEMP, along with reasons indicated in the previous AfD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator mentioned issues of source reliability as their reason. The last AfD was a decade ago and our notability guidelines have changed since then. That there has been no lasting coverage is secondary. This AfD shouldn't close without a review of source reliability. czar 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in from Very good very mighty which inherits its notability from the present topic. Combining the two I think is enough to show enduring notability of the meme. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 23 July 2020 (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.