Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Zombie controversy


 * 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   Rename and keep (rename already done). Consensus is to rename and keep (rename has already been done) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 Zombie controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not a real controversy (or anything to do with 'zombies'), merely a sensationalist media meme made by stringing together a few unrelated incidents. This will probably have been forgotten by next week. Robofish (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (OK, to be fair, we do have an article on Summer of the Shark. But one article on a silly media frenzy doesn't justify another, and this one hasn't yet demonstrated lasting notability.) Robofish (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the shark one was being discussed and analyzed at least 3 years later. if this search trend is still being discussed in 2015, THEN we might have a basis for an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: the article has been renamed and moved to Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012

Keep Obviously it's just sensationalism but it's been fairly substantive, to the point that the CDC was asked about it. I'd say it was noteworthy. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree that this is nothing more than a media made meme (and not that it is widely reported). SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moderate Keep The article may be based on an event fed by "media sensationalism", but if its scope is as immense and perpetual as past media circus events, it could be worthy of keeping. Also, the article is in its infancy and with just substantial revision it could be fashioned better. ~ Jedi94  19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it may sound absurd because zombies don't exist doesn't make it non-notable. KerathFreeman (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not the fact that zombies don't exist. it is the fact that a controversy doesn't exist. the news stories are only reporting a short term blip in google search term trending. we certainly do NOT need to have articles about every unusual search term trend.-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a good overview article; a category would be so complicated as to be useless. It is a widely reported meme, as noted by the references therein. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is NOT presenting itself as an overview of a meme. It's pseudoscientifically suggesting there is actually a pattern of events leading to an imminent "zombie apocalypse". There are no reliable sources which connect or correlate any of the events listed under "incidents" to support it's idiotic premise (nor are there even any reliable sources which establish its notability as a meme, had this article taken that route) Father McKenzie (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * delete the news reports are just a slow news day filler story about a google search trend (and they are simply the same recycled AP story). absolutely not by any way by any interpretation encyclopedic. --  The Red Pen of Doom  20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC) striking a portion of my previous comment. After a significant re-write the previous description is no longer applicable. --  The Red Pen of Doom  21:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a slow news day if a story is followed up by the media a week later and more. This is actually about several stories over a months' time. So WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of the newly added week later stories talk about the perported subject of the article, the "zombie controversy", nor the actual subject of the original news stories, the trending of a google search term. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

*Keep: Per Bearian.  Zappa  O  Mati   19:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no controversy. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Possibly rename to Incidents of Cannibalism in 2012. Parthian Scribe 05:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's just another attempt at inventing a catch-all term to include incidents that by themselves are not notable. And we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR, because ZOMBIES!!! ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * best. !vote. ever. --  The Red Pen of Doom  11:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a new, trending topic, that if it continues to spread may lead to a better article. I know for a fact that if I saw this article in a few years time I would want to read and relive it. Ddunlea21 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * key phrase: "if it continues". -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Memes aren't even given their own Wiki pages. This isn't even a meme, much less an actual controversy or historical event which the article fraudulently presents itself as. The article's own quote from the CDC proves its own non-notability. The "incidents" section is pure pseudoscience, filled with disjointed events that have no correlation. It's a sub-meme; an hackneyed inside joke. There is no controversy. Delete it.Father McKenzie (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * in addition, the other three sources used also each make a statement that the purported topic of the article does not exist: "Fact is, horrible crimes happen all the time. "This is all nothing new," and  "after a number of unrelated, yet disturbing, incidents" and   "Maybe it's nothing new, either; people do horrible things to each other on a daily basis." (emph added) We would be in a position of actually ignoring the analysis of all of sources used to support the existence of the topic. massive WP:OR /WP:SYN fail. --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- or at least rename. I'm still waiting to hear what the "controversy" is. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename: Like Bdb484, I still don't get what the "controversy" is. In my opinion, "2012 zombie attacks" seems more appropriate.  Zappa  O  Mati   20:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "2012 Zombie attacks" would need reliable sources that assert these attacks were perpetrated by actual zombies. The only workable rename would be something like "2012 Zombie Meme," which would also have to prove notability of the collective incidents as a "meme." There is no notability here. Father McKenzie (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The next best things I can think of then are "2012 cannibal attacks" (even though one of them doesn't apply), "2012 zombie apocalypse", or "2012 zombie incidents".  Zappa  O  Mati   21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Or how about just merging it with Zombie apocalypse?
 * i think Zombie would be a better target -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC) or maybe not. it looks like the whole zombie / zombie (fictional) / blah blah blah article set needs some work. --  The Red Pen of Doom  13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and/or rename the incidents actually are notable. The 2012 Miami cannibalism incident article is large and sourced. This article is also well sourced. The nominator has failed to demonstrate that this fails notability. I would ask everyone to compare to 2012 in Iraq (or for that matter 2012 in Iraqi football). --IP98 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.