Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a relatively unnoteable meme that could just as easily be merged to a small section in the main Ed Miliband article. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (Speedy, if you choose). This was no mere meme; this sandwich has the dubious honour of having, arguably, changed UK electoral history; no mean feat for a sandwich of any filling. The article demonstartes the significant coverage the incident recieved at the time, and it has continued to receive persistent coverage in reliable sources as recently as 2018, remaining a political touchstone among commentators—,, , , , , —and scholarly literature alike—, , , , , , , .An object lesson in what Richard M. Cook called "Punch cartoons for the Snapchat generation", you, nom, may call it a meme!—Michael Weiss described it as "the worst massacre in history ever perpetrated by a bacon sandwich"    :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Sources already in article much, much more than establish notability. Also nom fails to state an adequate deletion rationale.  Whether or not this photograph is "relatively unnoteable" is not relevant to anything.  It meets GNG, which is based on absolute rather than relative notability. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per SN. This isn't just a one-off "bad" photo of an MP being mocked, it has a long-lasting impact on his career.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice phrasing :) he was absolutely... (rhymes with Donald Ducked) :D  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG. It's a famous incident and a merge would lose a lot of sourced information. SportingFlyer  talk  19:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the above links providing coverage over a wide timeframe, this is clearly a photograph of historical importance. SmartSE (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Twenty references? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This does meet WP:PERSISTENCE, along with the other WP:N(E) criteria. Ralbegen (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It was a prominent image documented in reliable sources way beyond the original event in 2015 and 2017 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage over time in reliable sources - meets WP:PERSISTENCE. Edwardx (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (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.