Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Be like Bill


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Be like Bill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

New internet meme cites only FaceBook and fails WP:GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: No references to demonstrate notability or even to provide verifiability. ubiquity (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Social media memes have to break out into real-world coverage in reliable sources before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles — but no such coverage has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Quite obviously not yet a better encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister   talk  07:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some break out is happening. The article needs a ton of work if it stays though... http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/be-like-bill-stand-united-in-defiance-of-jakarta-terror Hypnotist uk (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete- non-notable meme Irish  Pete  13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BBC article --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bill is on the BBC Be smart. Be like Bill. Andrew D. (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. As much as I don't think a meme like this warrants an article, it does appear to meet GNG, with articles in New York, BBC News and the Daily Mirror . —me_and 22:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just rewritten the article to make WP:GNG more clear and to remove the egregious puffery; other editors who've suggested deletion above on notability grounds may want to re-review now . —me_and 23:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A noble effort, but WP:N requires coverage over a period of time. These sources come from a span of two days. There's nothing here to indicate anybody will care about this two weeks from now, nevermind years from now. Tons of cute videos, pictures, get a flurry of "viral" attention over the span of a couple days but aren't notable because there's no lasting significance. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything at WP:N requiring coverage over a period of time. If there were, Wikipedia wouldn't have articles about notable events promptly, because we wouldn't call them notable until there'd been more than at least a few days of reporting about them. As I understand it, cute videos etc don't meet WP:N because they lack significant coverage in reliable sources, not because they lack coverage that's spread out over time. Of course, if I'm missing something at WP:N, please do point it out – I did skim through it again to see if I could see anything about requiring coverage over time, but I just couldn't spot anything. —me_and 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's most succinctly stated at the top (in a nutshell): "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" (emphasis mine, of course). But it runs throughout various notability-related guidelines. E.g. further down the same page is notability is not temporary, which says among other things "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". WP:NTEMP means that if notability were determined at one point in time, subsequent events do not undue that notability (e.g. if a politician is determined to be notable before an election, then loses that election, he/she is still notable). It also means that if a subject needs to have lasting importance, and that typically can't be assessed based on coverage over a short span of time. That said, all guidelines have a lot of gray area that requires editor judgment. In general, it's a bad idea to create an article too quickly, but for some topics coverage is so abundant and/or precedent for such coverage is so clear that it's pretty safe from deletion. Major natural disasters, for example. WikiNews started because Wikipedia is not supposed to be news, but news turned out to be a thing Wikipedia's pretty good at. The letter of the policies could be argued against such articles in many cases, but practically speaking, it doesn't make sense to delete if all the evidence shows that coverage will continue. With a meme, there is no such precedent and rarely such an indication. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided by User:me_and, as well as numerous other in depth reliable sources, including:, , , . More than enough to meet WP:GNG. Per WP:NTEMP: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, "in accordance with the general notability guideline". WP:N requires lasting significance and coverage over a period of time, hence since it is not notable, there's no argument for you to argue against along the lines of notability not being temporary. And if you continued quoting from that section you would arrive at "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. [...] As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability...". We don't have articles about every meme that gets some attention over the span of a few days. Wikipedia is WP:NOT KnowYourMeme. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As your quote says, "may not be." As in, maybe yes or maybe not. In my view, multiple international references from highly reliable sources is more than enough to create a quality article. I think it's fair to say this already has better references than a large percentage of Wikipedia pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As silly as this meme is, it's easy to find a raft of articles about it in publications spanning the globe, from Malaysia (The Malay Mail) to New Zealand (the New Zealand Herald) to New York (New York Magazine, which I added to the references) and many more in languages I don't read. I'll also note in passing, as someone with a fair amount of major media experience, that it's no small thing to gather almost 1.5 million Facebook followers (I'd argue that is a form of notability in itself). True, those followers will likely melt away long before this winter's snows. But as a thought experiment, imagine a reader years hence encountering a reference to this meme in an article, TV show or book. That reader may want to find out what it was all about. --Jmatazzoni (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Though I was originally swayed to favor Bill by the large amount of coverage available (see my entry above), I've changed my mind after looking into Notability more thoroughly. In particular, the guidance re. Notability (events) seems apt.  Specifically,  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, which states that “Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.”  And WP:BREAKING,  which advises “Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.”  All of the articles on Be Like Bill were written in a burst of a few days starting in the last week or so.  The directives just cited, along with the rest of the discussion in WP:N(E), point towards a standard of notability that has to do with having a persistent impact.  By that standard,  one should say at a minimum that it's too soon to tell whether Bill will continue as a cultural entity.  Is there an option to "hold" the decision for a period? Jmatazzoni (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not really a precedent to stall closing, but it's important to note that a deletion isn't necessarily binding. In this case it would be a determination that we have not yet seen lasting coverage and it's unclear whether we will. As soon as that lasting coverage can be asserted, it could be recreated. At that time you could even ask an admin to put a copy of the deleted version (which is never actually deleted -- just removed from public view) in a sandbox for you to work on. &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The option to "hold" the decision would be to vote to keep now, then re-nominate for deletion after a few weeks or months. There's plenty of precedent for doing exactly that. Alternatively, as says, we could delete now and recreate later, but I'd argue that's more effort for effectively the same final result, with the disadvantage of not having a useful article in the interim. —me_and 11:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: significant coverage in reliable sources means the subject passes WP:GNG: StAnselm (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to other voters: as this AfD has been going on for nearly 2 weeks, there's been more and more coverage of the topic in major media sources around the world, including: Time, Boston, Boston Globe, Huffington Post, Yahoo News, Washington Post, Mashable, Daily Mail, Le Monde. It's a dumb meme but it's clearly notable according to reliable sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I detest the thing, but there are plenty of sources for worldwide relevance &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2016(UTC)
 * Comment - In the time since I nominated this, the subject has gone from meme that saw a couple days of popularity to being everywhere. After looking at the state of sources today, I have to say I'm leaning keep myself and certainly would not nominate if I just now came across the article. As there are other delete !votes I cannot withdraw, but I'll register my sense that the coverage will continue. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 16:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the reliable sources listed above. Like the meme or not, the coverage of it in global press means this now meets WP:GNG. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to have hit the notable threshhold for memes: plenty of sources. Sadads (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2016 (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.