Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Face Mitt (2nd nomination)


 * 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. L Faraone  13:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Little Face Mitt
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2013 April 10. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of internet phenomena. The trend of that section is not to make a full article out of a meme unless it has network coverage and/or is a significant part of internet culture. This article doesn't really have either. Dea db eef  (talk)  22:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable political flotsam that washed ashore during the 2012 election blatherathon. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Merely saying something is non-notable with not a single reason why you think that is a rather unhelpful contribution to this discussion. Using a fictional word to further your argument doesn't' enhance the dialogue here either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkychunkybeans (talk • contribs) 03:07, 18 April 2013
 * Very well. Clearly POV-driven content in original intent, clearly a part of a partisan political race that saw dozens of similarly dubious creations die a justifiable death at AfD. Lacks significant coverage in multiple published sources outside of a couple vapid announcements published as filler material at the time of creation. Lacks lasting encyclopedic or historical significance. Unlikely search term. Inherently a POV exercise. Fails GNG and the Common Sense test. Is that better?!? Carrite (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB. No evidence exists that this is any more notable than it was 6 months ago.  If this debate follows the previous one, get ready for a wave of sockpuppets begging to get it kept with little or no reasoning. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep for easily meeting WP:GNG. With 25 valid sources, 10 of which are solidly valid, there is no legitimate way to argue against this article's notability. It may not be the most notable thing to ever happen, but the coverage it received during and after the election certainly assert long-lasting notability and the flurry of images doctored to have little faces (Kim Jong-Un comes to mind) after Little Face Mitt hit the scene speaks volumes to its influence. While not a game changer, it was undoubtedly a widely seen contribution to the social media aspect of the 2012 election and in a bizarre way could be said to have influenced the way candidates are treated online. As for network coverage, Little Face Mitt was covered by both MSNBC and The Young Turks and was featured in several nationally read newspapers and online venues. And it is my belief that the two votes for delete prior to my vote should be afforded little to no credence because they offer no valid arguments and instead resort of a continued violation of WP:PA based on personal emotion. --Funkychunkybeans (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not every meme is notable (in fact few are) and this one will fade quickly as the 2012 slides into history. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. -- Trödel  16:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as far as I can tell there has been no valid policy-based reason given for deletion. A wave at been made at WP:WEB.  WP:WEB says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."  That seems to be easily met.  And in any case, this clearly meets WP:N with plenty of room to spare so the subject guideline just doesn't matter. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per Deadbeef. This is an ephemeral meme that doesn't meet GNG just because it was passed around during the election. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * However it certainly seems to meet the GNG because it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'd be interested to hear why you think it doesn't do that.  The sources seem pretty darn solid. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect as suggested above (which are perfectly valid contributions to this discussion) - I participated in the DRV discussion and nothing offered there convinced me that this subject is notable. Most of the sources provided thus far are examples of the meme, not explanations of what it is, how it started, etc. Examples without context don't make for very good sources at all - they could hardly be considered "significant coverage". The fact that youtube videos and twitter feeds (obviously not reliable sources) have been included in the source list just make it even harder to wade through to the one or two articles in the list that might be considered WP:RS. I'm just not convinced that there's enough of a lasting impact and longevity of coverage to suggest this was more than a flash in the pan during the election. Funny? Sure. Notable? Not really. Stalwart 111  06:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, what "most" are doesn't really matter. The question is if there are sources that meet WP:N.  The Young Turks coverage  would seem to be above that bar.  The Washington Examiner article, the IB Times article and the Gawker don't have the great coverage but its certainly more than examples of it and do explain how it started etc.  Seems like one source well above the bar, a number just over the bar (IMO) and a lot of other sources at least noting it including Mother Jones. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It does matter, especially when the basis of the argument for keeping the article has been that there are "25 valid sources, 10 solidly valid". Now it seems we've narrowed that down to "4 valid sources, 1 solidly valid". So without putting words in your mouth, it would seem you agree with the premise of my suggestion that "most" of the sources listed in the article don't do much of anything for conferring notability. It needs to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and I'm not really convinced it has. You are free to disagree - I suppose that's the whole point of WP:CONSENSUS. Stalwart 111  23:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but do you agree there is more than one reliable source that has significant coverage independent of the subject? The point of WP:N is to create a bright line for inclusion.  It seems that bright line has been crosses pretty easily, I'm trying to understand if you think it hasn't been or you just think the bright line isn't relevant for some reason.  Hobit (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not convinced they constitute significant coverage, individually or collectively. But I'm always open to being convinced and I will certainly keep this AFD on my watchlist to keep track of what others have to say about it. Stalwart 111  13:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in hearing why you don't think the Young Turks video constitutes significant coverage. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Summarize, merge, and redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012; although I still hold the opinion that the subject of this AfD still has not received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources I would understand the argument that the subject of this AfD falls within the scope of the article Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, as it pertains to the subject of that article's media perception, a summarization, merger, and redirect would be an alternative to outright deletion. That being said I would not be opposed to deletion as the subject does not appear to be notable as a standalone subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the article has been seriously vandalized, I don't see 25 sources, 10 of which are reliable; I see no reliable sources. Delete or smerge per Rt.cowleftcoast. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources have not all been implemented by to the page yet, as I believe it would overcrowd what is really a rather small listing. But, you seem to not have referred to the prior discussion, so I will repost the additional sources not officially on the page that are still valid.


 * From BoingBoing - http://boingboing.net/2012/09/05/little-face-mitt-launches-vide.html


 * From TrendHunter - http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/little-face-mitt


 * From SometimesThingsHappen - http://sometimesthingshappen.com/dang/little-face-mitt/


 * From WeKnowMemes - http://weknowmemes.com/tag/small-face-mitt/


 * From FunnyJunk - http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4061618/Little+Face+Mitt+Has+A+Little+Face/


 * From Bite TV - http://www.bite.ca/bitedaily/2012/08/little-face-mitt/


 * From Glittarazzi - http://www.glittarazzi.com/election-2012/113257-little-face-mitt.html


 * From TheFW - http://thefw.com/little-face-mitt-now-getting-the-video-treatment/


 * From DailyOfTheDay - http://dailyoftheday.com/little-face-mitt-is-now-a-video/


 * From Mashable, again - http://mashable.com/2012/08/28/mitt-romney-tumblr-pages/


 * From DangerousMinds - http://dangerousminds.net/comments/little_face_mitt_romney


 * From BostInno - http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2012/08/28/republican-national-convention-live-stream-watch-the-rnc-online-video/little-face-mitt-10/


 * Your argument that you see no reliable sources, however, is patently false and I don't quite understand how you can make that statement when it is clearly untrue. --129.89.130.109 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Zero of the above links count towards GNG as reliable published sources, I note. Carrite (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are actually being serious with making that claim then please tell me what, ON EARTH, would you possibly consider reliable? Would you like a hand-written note from the Smithsonian or something? It's absurd that you would have such high standards for an online encyclopedia. If those were the standards always followed, there would be no Wikipedia. If you consider NBC, Mashable, The Young Turks (formerly of Current TV), Mother Jones, The Washington Examiner AND The International Business Times to be invalid, I am genuinely convinced you will refuse to accept anything. Seriously now, if you thumb your nose at NBC, I am utterly at a loss as to what you would consider a valid source. Please tell me. --72.128.108.125 (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you find Wikipedia's standards to be too high, then please tell us how much success you have getting a "Little Face Mitt" article in, say, Encyclopaedia Brittanica--or any other encyclopedia, for that matter. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:29, 26 April 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.