Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter (meme)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter (meme)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Walter (meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Internet meme lacking secondary coverage. Note: I removed primary sources from the article before deciding the article could not be salvaged. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These links to social media where used as references, not as sources. I understand if that was inappropriate. YavBav09 (Talk) 08:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to last edit by me, but removed social media references and added the templates from your last edit.
Why do think the article can't be saved? YavBav09 (Talk) 09:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and references have the same meaning, at least in the context I was using them. Please read WP:PRIMARY.
Your only source currently is Know Your Meme, and according to WP:RSN, this source should not be used as most of the content is user generated. See this discussion. So you currently have zero reliable sources. The best I can find is these two junk sources commenting on a rumour that the dog died: [1][2]. Is that enough content to justify an encyclopedia article? I'd assume not, but I'll let other people decide. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By sources I meant a place the information is got from/can be verified from.
The only source I could think of was Know Your Meme. You're right - I agree that these sources aren't enough, but I could not find any other good sources. I'm sure that information in the article is true, but I get that people want to verify it. Is there something that can be done? -- YavBav09 (Talk) 15:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that there are no good sources is that it's just 1 Internet meme and there isn't much reason to write about it. The only reason that Doge (meme) has sources is that the meme is very popular and significant. YavBav09 (Talk) 16:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and clarification. I think you don't have a good understanding about the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia though. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The simple fact of the matter is if there are no good sources and not much to write about, there shouldn't be an article on the subject. This is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to be a collection of information that is so notable it has adequate sources to cover it, not a collection of all information. We shouldn't include information just because it exists, regardless of whether it's true or not. Or in other words, we should only include popular and significant memes, not all of them. These concepts of notability apply to both the article itself and the information within it. For example, even if we find enough sources to keep the article, you shouldn't mention that according to the lore Walter and Doge are friends, unless you have a reliable source for that. The reason I put a citation request on that statement is not just because I want to verify it, I also want to see that that information is important enough to add to the article. Importance would be determined by secondary coverage of the matter. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say was that I think the meme is notable enough, but there aren't enough sources, because there's no reason to make one for just an internet meme, but I understand Wikipedia:Notability. I agree that == Dogelore == section should be removed, since I heard that in some YouTube video. I'm going to remove it right now. YavBav09 (Talk) 08:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you put [citation needed] on == History ==? The source is the generic source from Know Your Meme or did you put it because Know Your Meme isn't reliable?YavBav09 (Talk) 08:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I put a citation needed tag somewhere that would have been because that sentence did not have an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:Inline citation. You shouldn't put sources at the end of the article, you should place citations at the end of the specific sentences they support. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's not notable enough for "Bull terrier". -- YavBav09 (Talk) 06:50, 5 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_(meme)&oldid=1016616894"