Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Face Mitt


 * 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. No prejudice towards recreation if Romney is captured by a head shrinking tribe. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Little Face Mitt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article on a four-day old meme. It's received some coverage from a few blogs (including some notable ones but notability isn't inherited), about as much as any photoshopped photo meme gets. The article creator has a possible COI, as he tried to create an article on the creator of the meme back in January - see Articles for deletion/Reuben Glaser - so this may be a possible backdoor into getting himself back on Wikipedia. Speedy was declined since notability was asserted. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - More Campaign 2012 nonsense. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A couple of blogs pointing to a recently-created site doesn't mean that the novelty is encyclopedic. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Quite obviously just self promotion for a blog... Piandcompany (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow delete per all of the above.  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MAJORITY. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree w/ that. When I type "per above" it means I don't want to waste everyone's time reiterating rationales already stated. It is not "mindless". It means I have read each of the preceding rationales and am in concurrence. Dloh cierekim  13:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. No reliable sources. Only political blather. My side's political blather, but blather ne'ertheless. I'm gonna assume good faith and not suggest some partisan political agenda. Dloh cierekim  04:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck per IBW source. International Business Times I have a conflict of interest, so no !vote. Dloh cierekim  19:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I misread. Source is International Business Times. Not IBW. Dloh cierekim  18:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * NEGATIVE Notability was not asserted. Merely significance-- a lower standard than notability. Dloh  cierekim  04:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOT, unless this meme is a lot more widespread than mostly one tumblr site. In that case it's still a notability problem. §everal⇒|Times 05:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: They've linked here, so expect some potential inbound votes from new users/single purpose accounts.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which kind of confirms that the creator of this meme is the creator of the article, and it was created for promotional purposes. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, delete as non-notable. While there has been some coverage in independent sources, it's a flurry of initial coverage with nothing really beyond that. It remains to be seen whether or not this will be notable in the long run, and it's not Wikipedia's job to hold on to something in the hopes it may eventually be notable. The COI issue noted above also suggests this is as much an attempt at self-promotion as it is to document the blog.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Maybe instead of steadfastly doing everything in your power to squash this page you could all do your job and make efforts to expand on it and stop deleting links to things like the International Business Times and claiming links directly to FunnyOrDie are "unreliable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkychunkybeans (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)  — Funkychunkybeans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Argument for Keep Also, I'd like to ask the question of why an event with similar media coverage and significance such as "President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF)" easily survived deletion but this one is under such fire. I feel as if both are equatable. I'm afraid some people may be playing politics in this discussion. --Funkychunkybeans (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — Funkychunkybeans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The existence of other articles has no bearing on this discussion. And it's certainly not political. I'm a very liberal Democrat, for one.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, claiming that people have political reasons to delete the article and are working against you is not going to make anyone want to help you.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This Page! It has nothing to do with self promotion. This is wikipedia, not an official souce of info.--- R.M.K — 131.94.186.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'd like to note that for this "vote", even though an anonymous IP first made this comment, User:Funkychunkybeans later edited the comment to correctly bold "Keep This Page." --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an unfounded smear to claim that I must be the person behind another "keep" vote just because I saw it wasn't bolded and bolded it myself. I did that because it would have gotten lost otherwise. I would have done it to an unbolded "delete" vote too. Please, don't be so presumptuous. --Funkychunkybeans (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — Funkychunkybeans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Some editors may object to you editing their comments, even if you were fixing something small. (Also, I'm sure the closing admin will not overlook an unbolded comment.) Hue  Sat  Lum  20:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the bolding. Funkychunkybeans, please don't edit other people's comments, even if you meant well.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Non-natable with unreliable or independent sources.  Hue  Sat  Lum  18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is also sourced to the gills as much as it can be with Little Face Mitt being under a week old. The only arguments I see appear to be forms of heresy or opinion. It is referred to, sardonically, as "nonsense," "blather," and being the difference of "significance and notability" and everything else is just empty accusations and smears that I am violating COI. I hardly find any of these things legitimate or validating of your arguments. Very sorry. --Funkychunkybeans (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — Funkychunkybeans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * userfy The thing is not notable unless or until there is greater coverage than the IBW article. If we delete now, we will just have to go through another discussion at WP:DRV to decide on bringing it back. If we WP:userfy, the page can be worked on and then the editor(s) can ask if it is not adequately sourced. (Probably not stating this in the best way. Hopefully, can get back to sleep.) And the creator needs to understand I mean mainstream media and not sources like Gawker or Salon, for isntance. Dloh  cierekim  17:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @[User talk:Funkychunkybeans) By blather I refer to the non significant coverage, not the article itself. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  17:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Argument for Keep First of all it is hilarious and disturbing. But also it teaches us something about our perception of the human face. I contest his tiny head symbolizes obscene inherited wealth. But why does a tiny face on a giant head symbolize something about obscene wealth? I postulate the tiny face removes all the "respect" his inherited wealth affords him by altering his outward appearance to appears like an inner spoiled child. So innocent, and yet so maniacal; like a child who wants to rule the world. --RuntimeErrorBoy 18:26, 26 August 2012 (EST) — Runtimeerrorboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Type specimen for WP:EXISTENCE and WP:GARAGE. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 00:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Contrary to what the person above me said, this is not about a garage band? I'm unsure if that was just used as an example, but it is misleading. I don't have an account and I didn't think it was necessary to create one just for this, but I do feel strongly this article should not be deleted. I recently looked over notability guidelines and I do firmly think it qualifies to exist. Just looking at the sources and the extent they wrote about Little Face Mitt should be proof in itself. Most of the sources mentioned are in the top 3,000 of Alexa's rankings (Buzzfeed is 508, for example), and how The International Business Times (a globally viewed website) published a lengthy profile of it should qualify this page as WP:INDEPTH and does not make it applicable to WP:NOT as just the International Business Times alone has recieved countless awards for their work, and the guidelines specifically state that "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]"''
 * The coverage has been ample and it doesn't really seem like this is even a discussion we should be having given the circumstances. I understand this subject is silly and many of you may feel odd discussing it like this, but looking at it for what it is you should find that it meets notability requirements. Cheers! --72.128.108.125 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 72.128.108.125 (talk)Phil — 72.128.108.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Indented. Closing admin should consider the arguments brought forward, but disregard it if counting editors. Amalthea  13:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment 72.128.108.125 traces to Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the creator of this article claims to be from nearby Sheboygan, Wisconsin. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a direct concern for this discussion. If you want to investigate that, take it to WP:SPI.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy or Delete, the only significant coverage from a reliable source that has so far been included is the article from the International Business Times, however the question then arises is a single INDEPTH article sufficient to pass WP:GNG? Personally I don't believe so, therefore the article can be userfied so the primary editor(s) can continue working on the article, or it should be outright deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi. Little Face Mitt has also had articles in Complex Magazine, TrendHunter and The Daily Dot. I went ahead and added those to the article too. -Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.108.125 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)  — 72.128.108.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - There are probably thousands of Tumblr blogs dedicated to political satire, and probably even more internet memes in existence. But that doesn't mean the subject is notable. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (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.