Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep. The overwhelming consensus is that this topic is notable enough for its own article. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC) I'd say more like WP:AVALANCHE keep. EEng 10:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Barbenheimer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not sure why this article was created, this is just one of the dozens of viral phenomena/topics of discussion about film that emerge on the Internet every year. Typically, such memes are not notable to justify standalone articles and are simply discussed in their respective film articles; I don't see a reason this should be any different. It is unlikely that this topic will receive significant, sustained coverage, and even if it does, it is too early to tell at this stage, when neither film has even been released. With the current length of the article, it can easily be merged into Barbie (film) and Oppenheimer (film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture,  and Internet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge—as I have expressed on the talk page, this is not notable because it's a transient internet phenomenon that fails WP:20YT and which will be irrelevant come July 22. Culture journalists report on memes and internet fads all the time, but that doesn't make them all individually notable. I agree that this is best expressed in a sentence or two on the main articles of the two films, not in an independent article. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  11:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Quick Snow Close to get rid of the huge tag on top of the page. This article is well sourced (The Guardian, New York Times, Evening Standard etc.), becoming better sourced by the day, is a bit of fun (haven't laughed so hard on Wikipedia as when preparing the opening image and its encyclopedic caption), and notable per topic, sources, and as a cultural phenomena. Let's close this down pretty quick, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you take any article of decent quality and cut-and-paste one of its sections, it would also make a well-sourced article. But the presence of sources doesn't necessarily demonstrate that a subject should have a standalone article; should we make articles for Cast of Oppenheimer (film), Marketing for Barbie (film), Production of Oppenheimer (film), etc. just because they would be well-sourced? No one is suggesting that this information isn't notable/noteworthy for inclusion on Wikipedia, but WP:N requires more than just being "notable" for there to be a standalone article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is textbook false equivalence, both ways. More sources ≠ important article ≠ less sources. However, the argument for more sources being good reason is founded in the fact that this article has more depth than could be contained in a footnote. I’m inclined to agree with that perspective. There is a lot of detail involved in this phenomenon that is worth reading about. Maybe it will die down, or maybe it will head recognition for phenomenon in the future. But either way, it is a cultural event of substance, and not one to rush to delete before it’s even happened. 204.111.113.49 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: since this nomination many more quality sources have been added to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * keep per Randy Kryn. Article is sourced, and it's not the first article about a meme that would be irrelevant in (near?) future, so I don't even understand why it was proposed for deletion. Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 18:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 — Culture IS history. If truly no one talks about it after the day of, then sure, they can delete the 10kb article if they must. But if it’s ever referenced in the future, even if in small settings, then we are doing a disservice to history to delete it. This event and phenomenon has meant something to millions—that’s important. 204.111.113.49 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per Randy Kryn's argument on how incredibly well sourced it is with perennially reliable sources. GNG easily met. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - well sourced article.   Manasbose   (talk &#124; edits) Manasbose (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Saying that it is "unlikely that this topic will receive significant, sustained coverage" is too WP:CRYSTAL for my taste and the rest of the argument reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As an aside, I think Marketing for Barbie (film) has solid potential. I may change my opinion a few months from now, but it is certainly a keep right now. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge I think for the time being, the phrase can be covered in sections at both the Barbie and Oppenheimer articles succinctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral — It is too soon to consider deleting or keeping this article. As mentioned previously, prudence suggests that waiting until the release of Barbie and Oppenheimer is the appropriate course of action. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge: Fails WP:10YT. Coining a cute term that describes what is essentially a routine blockbuster box-office rivalry does not somehow make it independently notable. Perfectly fine to mention in the two respective articles, where it can be boiled down to a single paragraph. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, we have IGN from the tech side and Variety and the Hollywood Reporter from the entertainment side as sources, rest are about as good as those. This is a keep. Might be a fad, but it's more than well-discussed, it's all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: it’s evolved beyond just being a phenomena now that there’s analysis being made over it. It just makes more sense to me to maintain its separate article than to footnote it onto both films pages. WP:GNG is satisfied in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts  18:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly noteworthy per the current sources with plenty of room to expand in the coming months, and it doesn't really make sense to have this information at either film's article when it is equally about both. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: To those who think this will soon be forgotten, the article draws an analogy to a similar case in 2008, or 15 years ago.  So this too is likely to still be referred to years from now.  LouScheffer (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The significant coverage received by this makes it more than just "just one of the dozens of viral phenomena/topics of discussion about film that emerge on the Internet every year". Only a very small number of such topics are discussed at length in mainstream media to the point where they become notable. I'm inclined to believe this is one of them.PraiseVivec (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * keep - Such a cultural fad deserves to be disseminated for decades to come. The public response and critique of Oppenheimer and Barbie together blends into many already existing theories, yet does not correctly merge as a singular, or if onto the pages of the respective films would likely cause confusion.
 * Researchers will require this information and it is without a doubt that the care and attention seen within this article will go missing if not preserved. 81.155.91.197 (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The article is well sourced and is important to understanding the current anticipation building up to the release of each film, the cultural attitudes towards each film, the current state of viral marketing in film production, and is also very well researched. Barbenheimer is a popular search term as of July 2023, and the article fills in the reader about it with great context incredibly well. Keep! --BakedintheHole (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well-sourced. Lots of decent coverage. Could use some tidying up or reformatting. Count3D (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Feature, but at a minimum a RobertsRobert snow close seems fair. Once the films come out, many patterns of similarity and/or opposite plot flows will be noticed and reported on, inevitable when people are looking for them (an underreported force of nature). This is actually epic poetry in meme form. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Feature"? The second sentence sounds like a whole lot of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Also, any reason you've !voted twice? Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 11:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . 'Feature' is a commentary not an !vote, as is the following sentence. My main point, as mentioned in the !vote higher on the page, is that this should be snowed in order to get the giant unsightly tag off the top of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge - Fails WP:20Y. NM 07:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The essay section linked promotes WP:CRYSTAL. How about a 50-year test, to pick a number out of a hat. Not a policy or guideline based merge reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced with significant coverage from different reputable media, and has sufficient content to be its own article. Skyshifter   talk  13:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, ya fun-haters --Jtle515 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes GNG. Arguments for merger seem nonsensical to me, why would we repeat a huge amount of the same information on two articles when this one is already good?★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This is very notable across North America and the UK. There are several reputable secondary sources on the subject. Aside from being an internet meme, this is a very well-constructed article that meets all the requirements Conyo14 (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Unlike the Morbius meme, the Barbenheimer meme is showing a real positive impact on both films. Variety reported that at least 20,000 people are going to see BOTH films according to AMC.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * merge, it's "doomcrossing" again, Doom and animal crossing.
 * if this stays, i hope that link turns blue as well. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not comparing articles here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now. The article is well sourced and will probably be notable for the next few weeks, though I worry about the article's shelf life and WP:10YT. Time shall tell, for now, my vote is keep. 〜 Askarion   ✉  18:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, maybe merge into Counterprogramming (film distribution) which is a much shorter article than this. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would think counterprogramming is a more formal process than this, which feels more of a ground-up kind of occurance (meme culture vs. deliberate marketing), so this merge might be misleading. 137.132.26.98 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This has proven to be active in the collective consciousness for over a year, as well as being reported by secondary sources consistently throughout that time. It is financially significant to both films and will likely stay relevant/be brought up for years to come, meeting WP:10YT. There is also merit in not unnecessarily loading both film pages with information included here. Jzahck (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) Weak keep: Article is decently sourced but I have no problem if this was merged into the marketing or release section of each film -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound (she/her) 20:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I say keep it notable we have many sources Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's received more coverage than most of the similar counterprogramming examples. Snowman304'&#124;'talk 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample RSs to demonstrate WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete. This is an example of recentism and is ultimately an internet meme that has no long-term notability. We don't have an article about, say, Doom Eternal X Animal Crossing memes, which were a very similar phenomenon, because those stopped being relevant after the games released. The same can be said here, this meme will have no relevancy or notability after the movies release, much less in a few years or decades from now. See WP:20Y. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:20Y is an essay and falls directly into opposition to WP:CRYSTAL. Per crystal, we don't know if the growing meme will be notable in five or 20 years, but it is notable now with enough acceptable sources to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. Agree with claims of recentism and while the sources may be varied and strong, the phenonemon can be summarised into sections on either page or on a section on counterprogramming. -- ayush   (reach out)  03:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Recentism or not is impossible to say as of yet. If term continues to be used, keep as separate page; if not, merge later.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  05:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Counterprogramming (film distribution): The phenomenon itself has had a significant impact on ticket sales & marketing for both films. However, it's likely that the trend will not have any long-term notability or relevance. I also think the information currently on the "Barbenheimer" page would be at home on the pages for their respective films and on the Counterprogramming page. BroIsAfraid (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) BroIsAfraid
 * Keep. well sourced and clearly growing in notability day by day, i see no reason why one could object to this article other than just “not liking it.” Kdog5454 (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable with significant coverage from RS. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't delete it it's a great case study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.232.104 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much of the substantial debate here boils down to concerns about how to balance concerns about recentism with WP:CRYSTAL; some editors have also accepted that the content is notable but have suggested merging it into the pages about the films themselves. If the content is notable then it needs to be kept to its own page: Internet memes about another film prior to the film even been seen are undue information that would clog up the page.  An article about the actual film Oppenheimer does not need to dwell extensively on the fact that many people found it amusing that it was released on the same day as Barbie.  As for how to balance recentism against CRYSTAL, I would argue we should turn to WP:NEVENT for guidance, as it also concerns matters of potentially ephemeral note that capture the imagination of journalists.  WP:NEVENT requires that a topic have WP:LASTING significance or wide geographical scope—this has both.  It has been discussed by RS across national boundaries as a defining cultural moment in summer 2023 with potentially wider interest for film theorists and cultural historians.  The rivalry between these films and the online reaction to it has become a significant matter in its own right and it merits a (sensible) Wikipedia article. —Kilopylae (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Barbenheimer article details significant cultural phenomena and well-documented marketing strategy, touching on various aspects of cinema, moviegoing, and internet subculture. As another user has stated, this is a case study worth noting. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.104.126 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has enough coverage and the topic will be more relevant upon release of both of the films. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems be an overwhelming consensus that the article is well sourced and important beyond a simple internet fad. While it may eventually be a merge in the long term, deletion makes no sense now. We should wait and see whether a merge makes sense in 6 months-1 year from now. Glenn984 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced article which has relevance to the current state of cinema and internet culture. Vader13289 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don’t delete this page 82.14.215.136 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, the subject has been covered in several reliable secondary sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, much like the Russian Kyiv convoy it is a current event where the existence of the article helps a lot with research and deciding if it is notable. A merge or deletion might be the best decision but lets wait until say July 28, a week after the box office to see if this had a notable effect Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The earliest articles cited are from April (months before the films' release), and journalists continue to write about this phenomenon, indicating that its coverage is significant and sustained. With 28 sources as of this comment, we can anticipate several more once the films are released and the public demonstrates its cultural significance, or potentially lack thereof. A merger, especially one that reduces the article down to 1-2 sentences as previoulsy suggested, would inevitably omit important information. Immanuelle makes a solid argument with respect to the Russian Kyiv convoy—it could be merged into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the convoy was a significant event in its own right. Unkeptsecrets (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment And for THIS article, we get dozens and dozens of editors participating. Sigh. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, but, the concept tis, poetry. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this AfD discussion has become a joke/meme. After four days of keeps, with minor merges sprinkled throughout, this could have been closed long ago. Now editors come to participate just for the lolz. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. While I am a big fan of these kinds of articles for sharing with friends, making an individual page for every "2 opposing energy franchises released at the same day"-event seems a bit excessive, especially in the eyes of WP:20YT . Either put a part about Barbenheimer on the Barbie and Oppenheimer page, on the counterprogramming page. Idealy I would love to have a page which describes these opposing same day releases like animal crossing/Doom and Barbenheimer, but I could not find any reputable sources linking the 2 in my quick lunchbreak google.Speederzzz (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The phenomenon has received plenty of coverage and is notable enough for Wikipedia. 195.50.217.133 (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with Berlin Alexanderplatz to make Barberlin Alexanderheimerplatz. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Barbenheimer" has been months in the making and has been the premiere internet discussion in the movie portion of the internet. Both films have stood their ground and refused to change the release date. I believe this article will give future readers a look into culture and internet memes in the year 2023, and thats why I support keeping this article up. Kennyboy1999 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Who are these people voting delete because it "fails" WP:20YT? This is no policy to be failed. As far as the sourcing goes, the subject passes GNG by a mile. References are covering Barbenheimer as a standalone notable topic with significant sourcing (noted above). Transient internet phenomenon also include PewDiePie vs T-Series or (hilariously) Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg. Didn't stop us from having articles on them. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:C4D1:B798:B5D8:B146 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - While this is certainly contentious, it seems the most sensible course of action would be to keep the article up, at least for now. The number of sources suggests a good level of notability. Some have mentioned WP:20YT, but I'd suggest that those concerns could be solved by keeping the article up, and bringing this discussion up again in the event that it is no longer notable in the future. It's also worth noting that, as has been said above, seemingly frivolous internet phenomena do often have articles. - &thinsp;callumpenguin (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: I disagree with the concerns about recentism. This is a well-sourced article about two of the most notable movies of the year, and I honestly do think that 10 or 20 years from now, fans of the properties will continue to look back on the phenomenon with enough interest to warrant a standalone article. Jpcase (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per others <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 17:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, as per Randy Kryn DimensionalFusion   (talk)  17:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well sourced with surprisingly significant coverage. ULPS (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It surprised me, but the scope and breadth of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that are definitively about the phenomenon meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, we have a big shelf and I think people will want to know what the heck Barbenheimer was all about decades in the future.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is well-sourced and I see no benefit from deleting it. While I will concede that it is not as important a cinema article as Citizen Kane or anything like that, it could be of interest in the future as a (Spontaneous? Coached along?) phenomenon that took place in the context of movie studios striving to get moviegoers back into theaters after Covid, competition with streaming, and being in the midst of the writers' strike and at the likely onset of the actors' strike. KConWiki (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Its a well-sourced article which details a notable event which has spawned discussions and memes alongside the potential impact the event will have on both films. KeyKing666 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment So to summarize, so far we've got keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, merge or delete, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the (inaccurate) summary, but you and I both know this is not a poll. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, darn, you caught me with my pants down! I'm a liar, liar, pants on fire! You've pinpointed that my seriously-intended summary suggests the count is 500-to-1 when it's really just 100-to-1. Plus, you've pointed out something obvious which everyone already knows! Good thing you're here and have the courage to speak up! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I must say, many of the arguments above seem to hinge on WP:ILIKEIT and WP: ITSINTERESTING. The closer should take note of this when evaluating the strength of each !vote's argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right: 30 of the 100 keep !votes didn't give policy-based arguments. So that only leave 70. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While it is true that quite a lot of them do boil down to WP:ILIKEIT or "per above," it should also be noted that many of the !votes for keeping do make direct counterpoints to the arguments for deletion. As you noted, this is not a poll, so the proportion of quality to quantity for each position doesn't matter, only the sum of actual arguments. FranklinOfNull (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I for one am glad that so many editors are taking a stand against the hate-fuelled agendas that have become so common on deletion pages. This is beautiful! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree! This is an exciting moment in cinema history. 98.116.61.152 (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's a noteworthy thing in film that's more than just a meme of the week that's being noticed by tons of companies and Hollywood that became a huge staple for both films! - Dragonsblood23
 * Strong Delete - This is a short article about a minor internet meme that could easily be covered on the Barbie and Oppenheimer pages.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have visited this article twice just today looking for information about this curious cultural event. This is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I implore you not to delete it! 98.167.27.17 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced. Maybe no-one will care in a year's time, but notability is forever and it appears notable now. A merge doesn't work very well because you'd have to duplicate content across two articles: it's neater to have one separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like its official now. Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia but a site for ephemeral news (does anyone follow WP:NOTNEWS?) about the latest Internet fad. I give up. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a sad day for Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an internet fad that is impacting the box office grosses of BOTH films, even before they are officially released. This article goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS with lots of reliable sources covering Barbenheimer.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 13:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But does every fad and meme and marketing ploy deserve its own article? Why in heaven's name could this not fit in the Reception section of the main articles? 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  21:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe a new guideline is needed for articles dealing with culture. Back before the internet, insignificant fads like these were confined to known, named-and-shamed tabloids. Now, with the clickbait economy, all a culture journalist has to do is scroll through Twitter to find "the next big thing", and Hallelujah, every other journalist picks it up to cash on the clicks. It's a serious quality issue, as I see it. This sort of low-effort reporting should not count as significant coverage under Wikipedia's guidelines. Much like Wikipedia has protected itself using the WP:RSBREAKING guideline, this needs to be discussed further and hopefully implemented at some point. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  20:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is well sourced and even though it might not be a major event it is still big enough that there has to be some credible information about it. Besides just by looking at how many people argue that it should be kept we can see that it has obviously been utilised as a source. Some of you are boring and don’t like having fun smh. I can see a merge later down the road but give the people what they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.186.23 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed! This is an important cultural event for many. Not just film theorists and students but also cinephiles, possibly anthropologists, and meme lovers. Keep it up! Lavenderlavanda (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to closer With this many keep !votes, I understand it may be tempting to claim there is "overwhelming consensus" for a certain outcome. But in addition to my earlier comment about ILIKEIT and ITSINTERESTING, it is important to note that many people are also coming here because they find this funny — "this" as in both the article and the nomination itself. See WP:ITSFUNNY, but this goes beyond that. Some people aren't even taking this nomination seriously, especially comments calling this "poetry", "beautiful", an "important cultural event", etc. The strongest argument of the opposing side, which is the abundance of reliable sources, does not automatically mean that a topic should have its own standalone article rather than a section on an existing one; plenty of topics on Wikipedia arguably meet GNG but live on a parent article rather than its own. A close resulting in "keep" will likely encourage editors to start mass-creating articles about every Internet meme and fad that grabs the attention from the press. I urge the closer make their decision thoughtfully, carefully consider the strength of each side's arguments, and compose a closing statement rather than merely stating the outcome. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming consensus comes from the overwhelming sources presented on the page, with more sources becoming available daily. That some editors also like it has nothing to do with the "keep" consensus obviously reached here, those comments are asides to the sources and policy discussion. The page meets each and every Wikipedia criteria for a stand-alone article and no, not every internet fad or meme will now receive an article (Internet fads and memes have been around for a long time and few have passed the bar. This one has). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ? Really? What about WP:SUSTAINED? How can you know this topic will receive sustained coverage when the subjects of the article haven't even been released? As Internet fads are normally seen as trivial topics that should not receive standalone articles, a higher bar is demanded of them before standalone articles are warranted. Barbenheimer doesn't meet that threshold, and even if it does, it's too early to tell. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sustained is WP:CRYSTAL, nobody knows if it will be sustained. TooSoon is an essay, and really shouldn't be used in the initial nomination text, as occurs above, because that might confuse some commenting editors who are made to believe it's a policy or guideline. Other essays, like 20YR, are also too often used in this manner. Hopefully closers know their policy-guideline-essay-opinion ranks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you keep on pointing out what is an essay and what is a PAG. Yes, we are aware essays are non-binding and PAGs are given more weight than essays — but that doesn't mean essays don't give good advice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is not either film. The subject is the odd internet phenomenon that was a reaction to the scheduling of those films. That that phenomenon was "released" has been made clear by the coverage that it has been getting in reliable sources for months, which is not prediction of how people will see their release, but a documenting of what has already happened. (WP:BEFORE specifically calls for those submitting an AfD to read the article's talk page and its history; perhaps we need to add that one should read the actual article.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * suggests that, A close resulting in "keep" will likely encourage editors to start mass-creating articles about every Internet meme and fad that grabs the attention from the press. made a similar comment. Forgive me, but this seems remarkably naïve. Barbenheimer is far from being the first Internet meme/fad that grabbed attention from the press that is covered on Wikipedia, and it won't be the last. We've encountered this question before and the policy that's relevant is WP:GNG. Lots of other fads have articles and Wikipedia survives. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge relevant material to respective articles. A dumb, ephemeral meme that has no lasting significance or notability after each film is done its theatrical run. Zaathras (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not the place for Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. to run a promotional campaign on. Even if they dress it up as forced meme.Hoheolo (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If one of the main editors working on the page is an employee or agent of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. then that should be focused on, discussed and called out at ANI, and they should fork over some of their pay to the Foundation for punishment/contribution/refreshments. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Warner Bros. isn't editing the article themselves (as far as we know). We're the ones helping them market their movie by letting this article exist and helping them spread the meme. But again, Wikipedia isn't Know Your Meme or Fandom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither 'article perhaps useful to company' nor 'WP is not KYM/Fandom' are arguments; they are mere observations. If you cannot differentiate between observations and arguments, you also won't be able to recognize and properly weigh counterarguments, which essentially makes engaging in a discussion with you pointless. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Despite the crystal ball statements of those inappropriately invoking WP:20YT as policy, we do not know what the future brings, for this or any article.... there may be none of us left in 20 years time. What we do know at this juncture is that this has coverage that has sustained for months. We know that some things which should have been forgotten in a moment have lasting use as a cultural reference, whether it's that time that Geraldo found some empty bottles or when Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli strapped on some water skis and passed over a shark. The creation of this amalgamation depicting the breadth of American commercial cinema, with its relatively high purchase in the current imagination and coverage in sources of significance, may indeed be used in discussion of film for a long time to come... or it may evaporate by October. At the very least, at this moment the article is drawing attention, it is growing and accumulating resources that are best gained in a central place even if later on we decide that its content must be divided among the pages for the individual films and the year-in-cinema article. So even if Wikipedia in its theoretical finished state would not have this article (and it is too early to tell with any certainty), it is advantageous to have this article now while work continues. The things that can be shown now, like notability, have been shown; the lasting value we can tell with time. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant credible coverage warrants creation. It's not just "Warner Bros" PR it's a legit domination over the culture. The One I Left (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many articles based on internet trends, phenomena and fads. See List of internet phenomena. Barbenheimer is covered by many reliable sources, so creation can be justified. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Frankly, the article should be part of a broader article about cross promotion/same dates of major movie drops, but since that doesn't exist, I think it's better to keep it for now. Trying to merge it with either of the two articles would lead to redundant clutter in both.Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Discussed in multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage, as attested to by the article. Looking over the article, this phenomenon has had dedicated features from New York Times (twice), Associated Press, Time to name just a small handful. The subject cannot be merged into either film's article because it deals with both. FWIW, non-trivial coverage dates back to April, so it's had three months of significant coverage already ahead of the premiere. It sufficiently meets GNG in that it has significant coverage in reliable, independent third party sources that discuss this topic as its own phenomenon distinct from the marketing and production of either film. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, please see WP:GNG. 185.53.198.46 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To note more: this is notable. It *is* different from most internet phenomenas because this has cultural impact that has been sourced. 185.53.198.46 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note There are additional comments/!votes erroneously posted on the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the good reasons stated above. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think there are valid WP:RECENT, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTALBALL, but the reliable sources that I've come across browsing the web before even coming to this discussion as cited previously by numerous contributors more than satisfy our notability guidelines.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 16:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I just archived Talk:Barbenheimer, recommending editors to make their comments here. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: the day may come when this article should be merged into Counterprogramming (film distribution), but it is not this day. This is a well-sourced article about a new phenomenon -- marketing the watching of two movies together in the cinema, as compared to counterprogramming which encourages watching the smaller film if the bigger film isn't interesting to you -- and time will tell if this sort of marketing will become a recurring event or a one-off. If the former, then this article will be the right place to talk about it, and if the latter, then we can merge it into another article as an example of a somewhat unique form of counterprogramming. But for now I don't see any reason to assume it's going to be one or the other. Gaurav (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, by self-referential argument: The argument for notability is enhanced by the sheer number of editors who come here to argue whether or not it is notable.   LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I will dissent from a few of InfiniteNexus' claims in this thread, because I think they need to be individually addressed. Barbenheimer is a special situation compared to other internet phenomena; not because of its popularity, but because it is the combination of two different subjects that are themselves notable. This makes it unique on Wikipedia, because what would otherwise be a section of an article now has its own article entirely. I would almost compare it to something like Morbius, with the contrast being that Morbius' standalone commentary can be kept to its article. Given that this article is focused on the event of them releasing the same day, that does not seem practical here. It is true, as Infinite mentions above, that sources merely *existing* is not enough of a justification to keep an article, especially when they may fit well under a section. However, when there are over 35 sources, a significant portion of which are from trade news organizations, I certainly think the individual notability is beyond covered. In that same respect, I disagree with the claim that the article's current length would make it reasonable to merge into the Barbie and Oppenheimer film articles. Adding this content to either article would greatly increase their individual lengths with information that is not particularly relevant to either article's subject, but more to the event itself of having both movies release on the same day; the sources themselves are primarily about this event to take place on July 21, 2023. Where would the redirect even point to when the subject is this notable on its own? Rman41 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep – The topic has received wide enough coverage—both on social media and reliable sources—to warrant an article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.