Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't talk to me or my son ever again


 * 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. Given the lack of opposition to the final Keep assertions, and added discounting of the ip comment.... (non-admin closure) Lourdes  04:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't talk to me or my son ever again

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article fails the notability criteria set for web content per WP:WEBCRIT. There are hundreds of memes created each year so it being the "meme of the summer" per several sources is not enough. Catlemur (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. In my view it complies with the criteria in WP:WEBCRIT. It complies with the first part in that there are multiple sources listed of which the meme is the subject (these sources are not exactly brief either, they go in to some good detail), and it complies with the second part – as stated, multiple identifications as the "meme of the summer 2016". Multiple publications, 3 of which are in the Alexa world top 1000, writing detailed coverage of web content makes it notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --User: Kris159 (talk – legacy) 10:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely un-notable and a random meme at best with an article probably written by the meme's creator Torqueing (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not allyourmemes.com. 118.15.95.75 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment *Sighs" not this crap again. I won't bother making a keep or deletion vote here, but I can rest assure to you, Torqueing, that I created the article but did NOT form the meme, and no valid argument has been given here to delete the article. Kris159 says it best here: I made the article because the meme ACTUALLY HAS SOURCES FROM INDEPENDENT PUBLICATIONS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY COVER THE MEME, and that should always be it. I also have no regrets in creating the Tea Lizard article for this same reason alone. The rationale for deleting an article about a meme because "There are hundreds of memes created each year" is pretty much the same thing as deleting an article about a musical album because hundreds of albums are released every year; there's no proper consideration of the notability or the amount of coverage here. This other argument the nominator made on the article's talk page renders to nothing more than WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and only shows he wants the article to be deleted only because of how he THINKS the article is important to have on the encyclopedia without taking into consideration the amount of coverage in reliable sources, as previously mentioned. I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia, as far as coverage of Internet topics go, now consists mostly of users that base the notability of a subject on how only THEY THINK the subject is important, not how much reliable coverage a subject has actually received. Not a good sign for the future of the online encyclopedia. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna say do something other than Delete for the reasons I gave above. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Every time EditorE leaves a comment it follows the same pattern, he claims that " no valid argument has been given here to delete the article", and then proceeds to use CAPS LOCK to virtually shriek at people who disagree with him. The accusation regarding my talkpage comment is not only baseless but irrelevant since I did not use the comment here. You are in no position to know what I intended by it. The so called "Independent Publications" are on the same level of Buzzfeed, playing on short term popularity and trends that last for a month or so to attract attention. Just as in the case of Tea Lizard this meme does not have what it takes to have a lasting impact as in the case of Unexpected John Cena. Claiming that this meme will become popular enough to be included here is WP:CRYSTAL while retaining it for any other reason is WP:RECENT.--Catlemur (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Before I respond here, I'd like to clarify that when I used CAP LOCKS here, I'm wasn't yelling, I was only using the CAP LOCKS as highlighting the most crucial parts of my comment. Then again, I could've used bolding to do the same thing, but still, it's funny how I have "no position to know what" you intended by your statement on the talk page, but it's OK for you to "know" what I meant to do by using caplocks. Congratulations, you deserve the 2016 world medal of Best Hypocrite of the Year. :D I would be using exclamation points if I was yelling.
 * Now that that's out of the way, the popularity of the meme has gone on long past March 2016, as a big enough indication by the independent The Verge source, and even so, assuming that the meme will have "short term popularity" that would "last for a month or so" would be a WP:CRYSTALBALL statement in the first place as well. It's also OK for you to assume that actual independent sources significantly covering the meme, keyword being "significantly", like Paper magazine, The Daily Dot and New York magazine "are on the same level of Buzzfeed" and that the meme "does not have what it takes to have a lasting impact as in the case of Unexpected John Cena", but I can't assume anything? Not only are you giving me more evidence that you're a hypocrite, but you're also giving me more evidence that your judgment of notability is only based on your non-notability-based assumptions. I know not every meme gets covered in reliable sources, however, when a meme does get covered and analyzed by a lot of sources, I'm going to make an article about it whether you think it's crucial to do so or not. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't know which part of WP:RECENT or WP:WEBCRIT you're reading that's leading to your reason for deleting the article, but I hope that those parts of the policy are removed immediately. Nonsense like starting this nomination only accomplishes disrupting and ruining the coverage of Internet culture on Wikipedia. Hope you're feeling proud of yourself, :) editorEهեইдအ😎 16:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read the following guideline before proceeding: WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Instead of WP:REHASHing your rage laden, Tea Lizard tirade.--Catlemur (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware I'm being "WP:UNCIVIL" in your eyes, and it's fine for you to judge behaviors of users. However, that doesn't mean I can't do the same thing, and I have no shame in doing this "uncivil" commenting that really isn't raging in this discussion and only sharing how ridiculous you're acting in the first place. Really, the only way to get the point across is by being this harsh, there really is no other way I'm gonna convince you. If I was gonna be WP:CIVIL, you'd probably continue to start invalidly counter-arguing, but that's just assumption. I also don't how you wouldn't also find arguments in the Tea Lizard deletion discussion like "shame on DYK for running this" and "It is embarrassing that this made it through the DYK process." as WP:UNCIVIL based on this same logic. I know I may be "uncivil" here, but again, I have no shame in doing so and being judged by others is a golden expectation when you're on the Internet.. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I'm gonna stop making comments here and go play the Ninja Gaiden NES games instead. Enjoy the discussion, participants. editorEهեইдအ😎 19:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per, this article's notability is established by several of its sources which discuss various aspect of the article's subject in detail. Unless there is a consensus otherwise, there's no reason to subject coverage of memes to harsher treatment than we would other subjects of equal novelty. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * keep meets requirements for coverage in reliable sources such as The Daily Dot, New York (magazine), Paper (magazine), and The Verge.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:GNG per above with ample coverage. No evidence of a WP:COI like some users are claiming - please remember to assume good faith. Smartyllama (talk) 00:16, 6 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.