Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doge (meme)


 * 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)  — Keithbob • Talk  • 23:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Doge (meme)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Doge meme is not content suitable for an encyclopedia and is not notable per WP:N guidelines. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. This is just an internet meme no more notable than Good Guy Greg, Scumbag Steve, Web Developer Walrus, or First Day on the Internet Kid. Pilotbob (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Internet meme. Three of this article's "sources" are BuzzFeed, one is MTV and the rest do not really assert notability in any meaningful way (unless you count Dogecoin apparently being "the most Internet thing to happen, ever"). Not that this is the time or place to fight against the inclusion of meaningless fluff pieces on Internet fads, but I really don't think this can be proven to deserve its own article. ZigSaw 05:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms -related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 09:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what Know Your Meme is for. Coverage is, unsurprisingly, heavily biased towards current-internet-stuff loggers and column fillers. Merge, and if after the current explosion of popularity dies down there's sufficient coverage in non-ephemeral sources to suggest this has lasting impact it can be built back up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, deletion reasons are all personal and subjective. It was a notable meme of 2013. Memes are part of human culture, like them or not, thus worthy of inclusion. Davedx (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep with reasons given below. The first is that we don't delete articles because the nominator thinks they are not suitable for an encyclopedia. That's subjective and just plain biased. Somewhat in relation, a lot of internet meme articles including Dogecoin have been subject to Afds because of this IDONTLIKEIT mentality. Second is that Dogecoin has been receiving a lot of coverage lately, and since it is related, it is fair to assume that the Doge meme might be explained in some of them, and they can be used as reliable sources to prove notability.  Konveyor   Belt  17:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that being mentioned as a humorous aside in a news article confers notability, no matter how many times it happens. Verifiability != notability. ZigSaw 21:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously great deal of secondary source discussion from a multitude of references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy Sawdust (talk • contribs)
 * NBC News, Business Insider, etc.  Zappa  O  Mati   17:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I know this is a popular meme, but does this really need its own page? I do not think it is notable enough to and Wikipedia really does not benefit from having an article like this. Especially one this small. This is not very appropriate for an encyclopedia, if you really think about what an encyclopedia actually is. But at the same time I do not think it should go to Internet meme. At most I would say make an article for List of Internet Memes for a compromise. Or else it should just be deleted. Secret Agent Julio (Talk) 04:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Business Insider, NBC News, The Verge, International Business Times, plus the reliable sources that are already in the article, mean that notability for this is easily established. Dogecoin and the meme itself are directly interlinked, of course; the nomination statement, and the one delete vote above me, are mostly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with vague notability claims thrown in there to try and hide that fact. There are more reliable sources out there than I have listed, but my awful internet connection right now is preventing me from analysing them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reliable sources are available, and additional are also provided by Lukeno. Also, the arguments to delete sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and comparing this to other memes without pages could be dealt with using WP:OTHERCRAP: just because a meme has a page, but others don't, doesn't make the former non-notable.  Zappa  O  Mati   17:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wait until it gets coverage in books or academic journals, or until the news sources treat it as a past event.  We are not the newspaper, and we're not KnowYourMeme either.  We need independent sources, and none of the sources are chronologically independent.  Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when was that policy? The meme clearly meets GNG, and the rubbish about it needing coverage in books/academic journals X time in the future has absolutely nothing to do with policy; be honest, you're trying to make it look like your IDONTLIKEIT vote is policy-based. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All due respect, Nyttend, but I doubt that an Internet meme will be the subject of an academic paper, let alone a book.  Konveyor   Belt  23:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The points outlined by Ziggy Sawdust i agree with. This article has been subjected to many deletion requests because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the result was always keep. Although I do agree that BuzzFeed may not be reliable and knowyourmeme is not reliable at all, there are many reliable sources that are outlined above. Retardist (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think that the deletion requests are meat puppets.Retardist (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Define "meat puppet" 76.243.102.88 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with ZappaOMati and Lukeno94. Further, we shouldn't prejudge the memorability of this meme. If it's forgotten in six months or a year, deletion will be appropriate; if it's still lively, we should keep the article, and would regret have deleted it. --Thnidu (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep From an historical perspective, a record of popular cultural items - however short-lived - is appropriate for an encyclopedia. The treatment here is informative and increasingly authoritative. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I created as a redirect to this article; if the article is deleted the redirect should be as well. L Faraone  02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep In the last 24 hours alone there have been mentions in The Times of India and The New York Times, not to mention many others previous to that. Simply do a Google news search and you'll find a great deal of references from sources other than non-notable blogs. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  07:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Numerous reliable sources to verify facts and general notability. Steven Walling &bull; talk   08:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep due to the majority of delete votes offering little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT-toned arguments. Sure, BuzzFeed is hardly a reliable source (and I'm surprised it isn't blacklisted as spam), but the rest are a-okay. There also seems to be evidence of purposeful disruption from the nominator, himself, including past history of suspected sockpuppetry also raising concerns. [ citation needed  ] 17:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - I checked the nominator's contributions, and the AfDs for Doge and Dogecoin are the only thing they've involved themselves in since January 2012... Slightly suspicious, that. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They've? It's only Pilotbob I've noticed. Atomicthumbs doesn't have any connection whatsoever. If you want to have fun with them at WP:SPI, go right ahead but I doubt there's a connection. [ citation needed  ] 18:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep reliable sources and delte comments don't have enough evidence for delete. ElectroPro (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons given above. Benny White (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for the increasingly authoritative reasons mentioned above. Even potential ephemera has its encyclopedic place. kencf0618 (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Dogecoin is now a currency on the market just like bitcoin. This isnt a joke or a meme anymore this is a real world currency worth currently worth 1000/$1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.115.79 (talk)
 * Keep. Per Lukeno94 and similar above expensivehat (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2013 (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.