Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete your account


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete your account

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another one of those news cycle things from the 2016 campaign. Yes, there are sources, of course there are sources, but they're all from the papers and have an expiration date: there is nothing here to suggest this "meme" has any lasting value whatsoever. If you like, redirect to her 2016 campaign article. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Notability is so temporary it's already long past relevancy. WikiPuppies  bark dig 16:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. As I said in another AfD, it's silly season for politics and every little statement seems to be made into a huge (non)story. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above; no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage on its own, only as part of the campaign.
 * How many more of these ******* things've we got here?! Muffled Pocketed  16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - well-known term on social media; I don't see a redirect as appropriate. It's a very standard term on social media and Hillary Clinton didn't create it (even if her posting it got half a million retweets), so why treat it as hers? Blythwood (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with deletion, but it seems to me the Clinton connection was what made it notable--or supposed to make it notable. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep possibly not notable before HRC used it but now that she has, there has been enough background reporting on the meme to make it clearly notable. The article makes it clear that the meme was around before it got sucked into the election. Let's not increase the suck; Redirect is not appropriate here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - at this point; not notable for stand alone article; trivia. And if not deleted, should be a redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Kierzek (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A redirect is not appropriate because, misapprensions of several editors aside, this meme/phrase did not begin with Clinton v. Trump, nor was a single "news cycle" that has "ended."  Here:, for example, is a recent New York Magazine article that has nothing to do with Clinton.  The article is sourced, and passes WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * keep Like E.M.Gregory says, this meme is as old as twitter. Riveted Fox (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Old meme, not seeing the significant and in-depth coverage or justification for standalone page. Perhaps a redirect to List of Internet memes would be called for. Neutralitytalk
 * Except that that is a list of bluelinked articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but there's no reason it has to be such. Neutralitytalk 00:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. We have to set the bar a little higher than this.- MrX 22:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * than what? It's now a pretty well-sourced article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of memes that could be sourced. Some that come to mind: We shall overcomb, Ermahgerd, this idiotic one, and Ridiculously Photogenic Guy. We routinely delete or merge such articles because they are trite and because Wikipedia is not an INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. I'm sure a few memes are of enduring historical value, but not this one.- MrX 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY I revised the article, sourced the origins, definition, history of this hashtag/meme. However, I ignored the Clinton section.  Feel free to improve whatever you object to, but at least read the article and make a policy based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Silly article. We can't document every tweet by a presidential candidate, and then say "oh this other famous person used it 2 years ago". Instaurare (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Silly" is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON. Is there something particular in WP:NOT that is infringed here? ~Kvng (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Pls see below; Original comment: per WP:USEFULTRIVIA and article improvements by E.M.Gregory. With the non-Clinton v Trump content, this is a short but reasonably sourced article on a meme, which is not against any policy or guideline. However, I would not support a redirect to Clinton's campaign article; I'd rather see the article deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Comprehensively fails WP:EVENTCRIT which states Routine kinds of news events (including ... viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. There are no WP:LASTING effects, no WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH. Also per WP:NOTMEMEDIR, every single meme is not important enough to be included unless there is secondary coverage which focuses on the phenomenon of the meme itself. Over here I do not see the solid secondary coverage required for a meme to be notable. There will obviously be coverage like "10 best tweets about X meme", but these are simply proof that the meme exists, not that the meme is notable. I also see that the history section of the article is sourced to Knowyourmeme which is a WP:USERGENERATED source and is not reliable. The rest of the references are all passing mentions. Definitely not notable at this time. I also prefer a delete and not a redirect as the Hillary Clinton campaign is not a major part of this meme. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY Objections on the grounds of lack of secondary sources describing the phrase itself, assertions made due assertion / misapprehension that this article is about an EVENT, and objections to a specific source as unreliable have been met in revisions by K.e.coffman, Yoshiman6464, and myself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:NEO, a policy that this article now passes. Note that the policy requires  "we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" and that while a scholarly article or 2 on this phrase would be good to have, what the policy requires is "secondary sources... about the term," and that I have supplied the article with several of these from highly RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENTCRIT (in particular WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE) is the relevant notability criterion here as memes are considered events. That still isn't satisfied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - This meme has been used before Clinton had tweeted it, and is likely to be used afterwards. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Memecruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this "account". This bullshit is only interesting in context of the ongoing election. WP:RECENTSIM and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Not an encyclopedic subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete on second thoughts. I like "memecruft" :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete How is this particularly notable? As a meme it hasn't even retained staying relevance such as Harambe or other recent memes. Nagylelkű (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete with no redirect. Should we have redirects for Donald Trump's tweets too? Hillary isn't the first person to say this. ZN3ukct (talk) 17:27, 21 September 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.