Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter


 * 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ミラP 05:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am seeing no evidence of notability outside if one review I am not even sure is in an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, as creator. AfDed 4 minutes after creation, what an admirable dispatch. I admit that this is probably a bit of a borderline case as regards notability, given that we have two third-party sources, Rocket Stack Rank and File 770, who are probably to some degree WP:SPS. But they are both publications that have received significant awards or award nominations in their field, which I believe allows us to qualify them as reliable sources under the "established expert on the subject matter" exemption. And, if I may invoke WP:IAR for perhaps the first time ever, I believe that it is in the interest of Wikipedia and perhaps the public at large for readers to find a serious article about a piece of literature when they search for this particular phrase, not a disparaging meme. (Also, given how the Internet works, it's likely that more media will pick up this topic in the coming days, but that's of course just crystalballing on my part).  Sandstein   14:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and my crystal ball was right: A few minutes ago, this additional piece of mainstream media coverage appeared:   Sandstein   14:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And now also:  Do you think we can close this AfD?   Sandstein   17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not a news service, there has to be evidence of long term notability, not temporary notoriety. This is only notable becaue of the controversy (and its links to a meme) so at best this should be a merge with the Meme.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is no article about the meme to which this could be merged, and nor should there be one in my view. The puerile meme is better covered in the context of this article. This is a work of literature, and most notable works of literature are covered by publications when they are published; this one is no exception. Long-term importance is something we talk about when we discuss events (crimes, disasters, etc.), not literature. That there is controversy about this story makes it more notable, not less.  Sandstein   17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet a novel whose sole notability seems to be its relation to the Meme should have an article? It is only notable for one reason, the flash in the pan shock.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There is also this article in Transgender Studies Quarterly. This is what a WP:BEFORE search is for. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for finding this. It's about the meme of the same title, not the short story that is the topic of this article, but it could still yield relevant background material. Does anybody here have the kind of library access needed for the full text?  Sandstein   15:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Try WP:RX. buidhe 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The Wired item, plus the two third-party sources in niche but well-regarded and influential publications, are enough to make a decent notability case. (I had actually read the story before the big dust-up about it, because I happened to check Pharyngula on the day that PZ Myers pointed to it, calling it "good and slightly terrifying" .) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum With the Guardian story linked above, I'd support an early close. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. With the Wired coverage, sufficiently notable. And per WP:IAR, I like it, and like the argument that this will be what people find if they come looking for the meme. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete Is an internet meme that seems quite irrelevant. Pages about memes (unless they are significant) are not supposed to have pages. Dellwood546 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , this article is about a short story, not about the meme.  Sandstein   17:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And, for that matter, the meme has been written about in places ranging from the academic article linked above to sports news. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The only reason I'm voting to keep is because of Guardian and Wired. I wish it had more sources though. ⌚️ (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Short stories should be subject to similar notability guidelines as books. Since there are now multiple pieces of independent coverage in reliable sources, it should be kept. buidhe 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is not just a one-event, but did get a review also. So overall coverage meets WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: we'd be crazy to delete this. As 'Shonen says, having our article focus on the short story is the responsible thing to do. There are certainly enough reliable sources to meet GNG now, and this is the right article to write from those sources. Kudos to the author. --RexxS (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep – It is snowing. We can add Reason to the list of RS. More are very likely to come very soon. Passes GNG. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per sourcing identified, and likely to add on. I had never heard of the meme, so a few sentences in a background section would be helpful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, has multiple sources that review/cover this short story. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * keep given the large amount of coverage. Artw (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I made R from meme just for situations like this. I've applied that tag to . Also, is the meme really transphobic anymore? There's been a significant effort to reclaim it, and I think nowadays it's mostly used ironically by the LGBT community (or at least in my weird circles). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.