Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation needed (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  13:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly no notability. Huge problems with sources too, much of it comes from blogs, Urban Dictionary, Know your meme and other self-published websites that anyone could edit. As a matter of fact, as far as I can see only 1 of 10 sources pertains to the issue discussed in the article (the concept itself) and is not self-published Openlydialectic (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Even only 1 of 10 sources pertains to the issue discussed in the article (the concept itself) and is not self-published, if there is at least a source which can prove notability, it is not meant to be deleted. SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 10:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Minor note: Even if the consensus is that the content lacks notability, it should be restored as a redirect to Citation needed, according to the last AfD result. SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 10:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * How about merging somewhere? w umbolo   ^^^  13:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it ironic that the citation needed article needs more citations. ITSQUIETUPTOWN   talk • contribs 13:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect: to the Wikipedia:Citations needed page instead. ITSQUIETUPTOWN   talk • contribs 13:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At least better than citation is needed itself (no citation at all). SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 12:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the first AfD. The reason we're here now is that moved Draft:Citation needed to here on 1 August, wiping the old edit history. Otherwise somebody might have simply reverted back to the redirect state. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  12:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Citation needed to prevent its further creation in the future. If we allow this article to exist, we're going to be creating a precedent. That means, there will be lots of articles about Wikipedia's internal stuff as articles in the mainspace and they'll use this discussion as an argument to keep. Please let us not let this begin. Holy Goo (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources aren't all terrible. I'm not seeing the problem with the Know Your Meme site. It is not a site where people can self-publish. It's true that users can submit a meme for consideration, but then again readers of a newspaper can submit a story. It doesn't mean it is going to get published. According to the site, they have a professional editorial staff who review submitted material and research "the online presence of the meme for confirmation or invalidation."  Joshua Glenn's "Brainiac" column in the Boston Globe could perhaps be allowed as an RS under WP:SPS as a recognised expert since he has previously published on internet matters. Variety doesn't strike me as a source we should reject as non-RS (although in its case, it provides only one tiny factoid).  Finally, of course Wikipedia articles can't be used as reliable sources, but page histories can certainly reliably identify the creator of the page. SpinningSpark 19:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Know Your Meme can never be used to establish notability. Do we need a RfC? w umbolo   ^^^  19:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Asserting that without a rationale is not very convincing. It's even less convincing that you have not answered any of my rationale for accepting it. The status of the page in question is shown as "confirmed", meaning that it has been checked by the editorial staff. Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They just "confirm" it if it exists, and is appropriately described, but that doesn't give it any weight or make it significant. w umbolo   ^^^  21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep If the phrase is unnotable,then why do news sources & books & scholarly sources keep using the phrase over & over. ''Oh, & here's a list of scholarly articles specifically discussing "citation needed":
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.
 * Don't delete it, fix it! Next time, honestly, please do some due diligence & some research before you declare something "not notable". Clearly notability is not an issue here.


 * Peaceray (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This term exists as common sense.--Beta Lohman (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, as explained by Peaceray above. --Espoo (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a very notable topic since it has a lot of usage outside of Wikipedia. — Eli355 ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Add to the list above, The New York Times. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm seeing the term in quality sources, and not just in passing, but in a way that suggests the concept is notable. These two: both describe the term as "infamous", while these:  mention it in a sense which suggests we should all know about it. This might not be possible, due to technical limitations, but there might be a case for renaming it to have the square brackets around it, since that's how the sources are denoting it. I wouldn't delete it though, and I certainly wouldn't redirect it into Wikipedia space, that would be worse than deletion. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many keep !votes are unconvincing that this deserves more than a WP:DICDEF, but some have provided plentiful coverage. w umbolo   ^^^  13:04, 12 November 2018 (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.