Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Go Song (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. Cerebellum (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Go Song
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable internet meme. The only argument I can see to keep this is that it's part of the list of most disliked YouTube videos, but not all videos on that list have articles.  ONR  (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:A9 and WP:NOTNEWS. TheKaphox   T  23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep actually, let me discuss A9 and NOTNEWS, which you linked: First, the other thing I wrote on this page. It's on the bottom, see that. Second, about A9—The singer of the pokemon go song does have his on Wikipedia article, and the existence of it is well-deserved, considering all of his YouTube hits. Plus, the funniness, weirdness, and popularity of Misha, which allowed the Pokemon Go Song to become such a popular meme, those all indicate that the song is significant. Now, for NOTNEWS—The article does feature secondary sources and non-original reporting, first off. Second off, the article isn't really like a news report. Third off, the popularity of Misha from the Pokemon Go Song, and his other hit songs, do make both Misha himself and the song notable. Fourth off, the article is not a diary. And if you need more reasoning for the article not to be deleted (what I've said both here and the bottom of the page should be enough), having a Wikipedia article on the song can make the song even more notable, and those who would normally consider the article for deletion once they find it, they'd already know about and they'd no longer want the article deleted, they just made the song more notable by finding the article.

Also, I previously said this on the page, but it was striked:

''The page wasn't deleted the first time it was being considered for deletion, and the song/meme was even less popular at the time. The video is very popular, it's one of the many most disliked videos on YouTube, the creator of the song (Misha) has his own Wikipedia page (yes, it's also being considered for deletion, but it's a different page, it's definitely less notable than the song itself), and Misha has made many other notable songs that have became memes, where the pokemon go song is one meme that is a part of one whole huge meme, that whole huge meme being Misha. Finally, don't forget, there have been multiple online news articles made on the song, most of those news sites being quite popular, and even writing articles about the song before it got as popular as it is now.'' --P4risAndStuff (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I think I should add: Articles that have survived AfD (like this one) ARE NOT eligible for speedy (or prod) except for newly discovered copyright violations. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Every time I try to tag this for speedy deletion as non-notable, it gets reverted by an editor citing a loophole in the CSD policy. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. The page wasn't deleted the first time it was being considered for deletion, and the song/meme was even less popular at the time. The video is very popular, it's one of the many most disliked videos on YouTube, the creator of the song (Misha) has his own Wikipedia page (yes, it's also being considered for deletion, but it's a different page, it's definitely less notable than the song itself), and Misha has made many other notable songs that have became memes, where the pokemon go song is one meme that is a part of one whole huge meme, that whole huge meme being Misha. Finally, don't forget, there have been multiple online news articles made on the song, most of those news sites being quite popular, and even writing articles about the song before it got as popular as it is now. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Misha's page just got deleted. Also, you created the article, and you made 2 !votes. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I just want to defend the article and it's existence. I've never discussed the possible deletion of a Wikipedia article before - And my first time doing it is for my own article. I could combine my two !votes. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and this is my final say here. If there's nothing else to say, the article should be kept. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You may only give one bolded stance per discussion. (Delete, keep, etc) I've fixed this for you. Sergecross73   msg me  22:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - to Pokémon Go's "Cultural Impact" section. The last AFD showed that sources have covered it some (even if editors have still failed to implement them into the article). However, there's no real reason for this to have its own article. It's popularity is entirely piggybacked off of the immense popularity of the game, and there's very little to be said here other than "Child sings song, YouTube watches, dislikes it." Its barely worth a sentence at the parent article, let alone a dedicated article.  Sergecross73   msg me  15:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the most disliked Youtube videos target as well. Sergecross73   msg me  13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage, and the sources that there are fail to adequately indicate a credible claim to significance. Basically, unencyclopedic fancruft- not convinced it has sufficient notability to justify a redirect even, but no objections if that's the community verdict here. Muffled Pocketed  07:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. It was a viral video that got some brief attention, but none of the sources show any type of ongoing notability.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 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.