Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us


 * 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. There seems to be a consensus that this is more than simply a run-of-the-mill news story, and that the copious sourcing in the current version of the article is sufficient to demonstrate notability. ‑Scottywong | express _ 06:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. No indication of lasting encyclopedic significance without people just speculating, and actual notability likely won't be established just by news sources reporting on it if at all until after the event. The title also doesn't seem like a useful redirect/merge. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. Kingofaces has stubified the article while the discussion is on-going and removed almost all of the content.  I reverted him once on procedural grounds, he reverted me and accused me of edit warring (???) but for any newcomers, please see the article history.  SnowFire (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was essentially a stub in either version even before I nominated, and there's very little functional difference in the before and after nomination. General article cleanup was going to happen regardless of AfD or not in terms of redundant or tangential content. WP:ONUS is still policy, and people need to actually gain consensus for new content being added in where problems have been pointed out as part of normal talk page discussion and consensus building. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant the version of the article immediately before you reduced it to a 4-5 sentence stub. This is what I was referring to.  See article talk page for further discussion.  SnowFire (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I just pointed out it was a stub in both versions when the nom actually occurred. If you mean very recent edits, they wasn't gaining consensus, so it shouldn't be any surprise it was removed. I restored it back to as much of a status quo there can be for a newer article in terms of content that actually has made it through some scrutiny under WP:DUE (independent of saying it's actually notable). That's all after responding to requests to do general cleanup like that at WP:FTN in addition to considering if page deletions were needed. Saying I reduced it to a stub as a "procedural note" when that's how it originally was without new content gaining consensus isn't really appropriate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete just another joke, when its pushing up the daises and has achieved the status of the Norwegian Blue then it might be a notable Joke.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect as a useful search term to Area 51. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Area 51 at least at this point. If it happens and gets major coverage, then maybe a separate article, but right now, this is a meme, a valid search term (hence the merge) but not needed a separate article. --M asem (t) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of my rationale in my delete nom is that there's nothing really to merge that isn't already at the current area 51 article section Area_51(it sounds like you're really just asking for a redirect instead). In that case though who's really going to search for "Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us"? It's fairly nonsensical search term, and at best, we're maybe going to get people searching for "Area 51 raid". Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not nonsensical: It's the verbatim title of a Facebook event that has attracted the interest of millions of people, and there are definitely going to be people who search Wikipedia using the full title. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge because of the frankly massive attention it's received. Though a recent event that also happens to be an internet meme, I feel it should either be merged back into Area 51 or kept. I can't really think of a reason to delete this versus, say any other page about an internet meme. That being said, though, its status as a stub is likely not going away any time soon.WAUthethird (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not if people delete relevant material about the fact this is a piece of satire, no. At this time it fails NPOV, and possibly wp:fringeSlatersteven (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. All the important info is already on the Area 51 page. If the event comes and passes and newsworthy events occur, then this page could be reinstated. Don't redirect as it isn't a particularly helpful search phrase. TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - It’s premature. Hasn’t happened yet (and May never happen).  Promotional? Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Newsworthy joke, and if it does really happen in some capacity, then newsworthy event. - AceAlen (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the nom, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy that actively discourages this kind of thinking in notability discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This deserves a few sentences in List of Internet phenomena with all the other earth-shattering-at-the-time-but-later-forgotten memes. but not a stand alone article. It should also be removed from Area 51 since it has no lasting significance or impact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge  per above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to relevant section of Area 51. Highway 89 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge. This isn't notable on its own, but it has garnered a lot of media coverage. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, on 2nd thought, delete, as a nonsensical search term. I would keep the information that is on the Area 51 page for now. But not notable on its own for a standalone article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge Brief mention on the Area 51 article and/or List of Internet phenomena but not its own article. JamesG5 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This has received much media attention. - ZLEA T\C 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Area_51. That's as much coverage as this joke warrants at the moment. Anything more is UNDUE. Article also fails NOTNEWS and the WP:10YT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This event may generate substantial media coverage on and around the date of the event, as some individuals have already made legitimate plans to travel to Area 51.  Delete if the "meme" fizzles out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Joshua (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect - into Area 51, not only per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS but also because there's not much to write about it so it doesn't need an article. This may change if incidents occur in relation to the joke.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this page SPECIFICALLY, but a mention on the Area 51 page suffices for now. As said if it blows up, this page can always be recreated.  Draconiator (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete but keep it mentioned on the main Area 51 page. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough attention for 3m people to 'join in' and News coverage by many stations. Parafron-trodaí (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Parafron-trodaí
 * Keep. Definitely enough coverage. I just read a lengthy Time article, and there are plenty of other sources. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I also think this is important. --Vlad|-> 15:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and appropriately sourced. Starting to have tangible implications (e.g. on local economy surrounding Area 51) LittleT889 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as newsworthy joke, Meets GNG, Will be even more newsworthy if people go there!, Anyway keep. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. I don't see any PAG-based reason to delete it. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The nom and others explicitly mentioned WP:NOTNEWS policy as well as recentism, specifically WP:10YT, giving pretty solid PAG grounding for deletion aside from the search term discussion, so that can't really be ignored. There hasn't really been anything much from keeps in terms of WP:!VOTE (moreso WP:ATA) even addressing those policies between directly contradicting NOTNEWS policy and relevant guidance on what is actually notable under GNG. The guidance for these kinds of things is to mention them briefly at a relevant article (Area 51 as events unfold as is currently done. One can discuss redirects, but there is no justification in policy for saying to keep it outright at this time unless we want to scuttle policies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the keep comments that exclusively evaluate the article against GNG should not be accorded much weight. However, I disagree that there is "no justification in policy" for keeping the article—do you have a response to my !vote below that is based on WP:EVENTCRITERIA? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * EVENTCRITERIA hadn't really been discussed yet, but it fails bullet 1 (a form of 10YT mentioned above). Right now, it's just an internet joke without any indication of any real-world lasting significance. Bullet two is more focused on reanalysis afterwards, as WP:CRYSTALBALL is policy here. Three and four basically wrap into being routine coverage being more in the realm of an and finally story coupled with NOTNEWS policy again in terms of just simply being widely covered not indicating GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding which criterion in NOTNEWS would disqualify this article from inclusion; the subject does not fall under "routine news reporting". WP:GNG explicitly states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. What part of that is not clear? The nom made a notability-based argument, and I responded by referring to GNG. I don't find the nom's NOTNEWS argument to be persuasive. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The combination is NOTNEWS policy when you look in the lens of something like WP:10YT. When this did make the news, it was really more of an "and finally" type of item. Those usually fall under oddities, heartwarming stories, etc. that get news coverage, but aren't really significant news coverage. That context is in the 10YT guidance about recentism. NOTNEWS policy also specifically says, While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. with more guidance on that. So far, this has only been a relative blip in news reporting and hasn't established real GNG. The question isn't is it's covered, but to what degree and depth it is. There's some other good guidance out there like WP:FART that has some parallels here. Tl;dr, my NOTNEWS comments are based in lasting encyclopedic significance and how it's covered by news that's lacking. The Area 51 article handles it just fine though when it comes to WP:DUE treatment of sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I believe the subject passes WP:EVENTCRITERIA. I understand the calls for deletion/redirection based on WP:NOTNEWS. However, I think the broad range of coverage in American, British, and Australian media—not to mention the sheer number of people who have responded to the event—is enough that it meets WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. There's still a part of me that thinks the article might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, since it's not really possible to evaluate the event's lasting significance before it has taken place, and I'm willing to reconsider my !vote after later discussion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not an event, it was a joke that some people took seriously enough to actually want to attend (and in fact the originator has all but said that no one should turn up), nor how many of those were serious and will actually bother to turn up. It like me saying now I am organizing A "Keep The Grand duchy of Fenmwick British" event, and people deciding to take it as a serious event.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge for now The main event hasn't occurred yet and the coverage could be contained in the Area 51 article's history section until the September. – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 01:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. This could be worthy of keeping, but as of now, there isn't enough information in the article to keep. For now, it could be merged into Area 51 until enough pertinent information and references can be included to make a stand-alone page. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: As per above, article is noteworthy and has media coverage. 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and wait and see what happens on the date. Then keep or merge according to the specificity of the subject. Wikyvema (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Wait and see" violates WP:CRYSTAL policy. Either it is notable now, or it is not. Articles should never be created in the hopes they may be notable someday in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Area 51. Revisit after Sep 20.-- Auric   talk  12:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. In case nobody notices, there |there have been this many pageviews since the article was created. I would suggest keeping it in view of the amount of attention the article been's receiving (and will receive later on). JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Page views are not a keep justification, but that said, it's all likely spillover traffic from the Area 51 article that had over 500,000 daily page views recently compared to the 15-20k this article got in the last two days when readers realize the same information was already present at the Area 51 page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This event is spawning others such as the woodchip pile in Tasmania (!?).  Anyway, this sort of thing has been done before and it made a lasting impact – see mass trespass of Kinder Scout, for example.  Time will tell what happens in this case so we might as well just wait and see. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference is that happened (this may not) and was not a joke. In addition it may already be dead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as a meme which is only relevant to the Area 51 article, where it is already covered. There is no indication this has lasting newsworthiness, it's just a fad. We also cannot anticipate it becoming newsworthy. (At best, it will become newsworthy when some folks do show up and discover trying to cross the desert is itself a bad idea. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect This event is just as well-covered in the Area 51 article. Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The fair use image on the page should also be deleted if this page gets deleted. Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep notable per sourcing NPR New York Times. We do not make subjects notable. But we allow them to have an article when they are. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait It would be premature to delete the article now when the event has yet to occur. Whether or not it will be newsworthy can only be determined after the aftermath. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the exact opposite of the principle of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, which exists specifically because of this. Wikipedia covers things that happen, not things that might with removal if they fizzle. JamesG5 (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not wholly sure it has not already fissled out now the initial "LOOK LOONIES, LOLS!!!" media reaction is over.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * JamesG5 WP covers things that are notable. And once the thing is notable it is always notable...even if it fizzles WP:NTEMP . See Noah Raby for example. If a subject gets RS coverage the subject is notable. We also cover similar meme phenomena like this: Dressgate Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lightburst you're not wrong & that might be a valid argument here. I was responding to Sir Trenzalore's spcific point above because what he said is NOT valid.  Doesn't mean all the other arguments here are, some of them DO meet the criteria at the guideline I cited. JamesG5 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL but preserve page history. The article does not meet notability requirements at present. While there has been a lot of media coverage, this coverage has been regurgitating the same limited information ad nauseum. There is nothing to say that isn’t already summarized in the Area 51 article. The WP:RAPID exception is most appropriate for rapidly evolving events that will almost certainly meet notability requirements within the near future (often before the AfD is scheduled to close). Here, the Area 51 coverage is not evolving and its far from certain that it will meet notability requirements. Honestly, this article is just too threadbare to keep hanging around for two-months on the chance that it will meet notability requirements after September 20. If it meets notability requirements then, the article can be recreated from its page history. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep widespread coverage and has led to a significant response socially, so as a cultural phenomena meets significant coverage criteria, Sadads (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable event do to the massive amount of reliable sources covering this thing.  D r e a m Focus  01:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - its a repetition of the comments above, but I agree that overwhelming coverage in the media allows for the article to meet WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral on the article but do not mention in Area 51 as this violates WP:RECENT. The Facebook joke does not form a substantial part of the conspiracies around Area 51—rather, the joke is built upon the premise that millions of people are already familiar with much more significant conspiracy theories about the site. It is therefore undue weight to have a section on it there. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's been suggested that it might pass WP:EVENTCRIT, but I believe that is the incorrect standard to use, as the sources all make it clear that no actual event is being planned. It's just a joke. As a joke, it's already faded out. Keeping the article would just be recentism and it would certainly be deleted six months from now when somebody brings it back to AFD. ApLundell (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or redirect Since I made the above post, the news coverage has both continued and diversified. At this precise moment in time, there is a lot that can be said about this topic. I think lasting significance may still be an issue, but I'm more comfortable invoking WP:RAPID given that this topic continues to develop. Regardless, I still believe that this article should be preserved in some form (even if it is just in the page history or as a draft). It is plausible that this article will have lasting significance; there is absolutely no benefit to striking every trace of this article off the face of Wikipedia and risk having to rewrite it from scratch. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:ITSSTUPID is not a reason for deletion. Like it or not (and I don't like it), this is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the most popular Internet memes of the year, which has had an effect on the local economy outside of the base as all the businesses in the area are preparing for upcoming visitors. I'll do my best to expand the article. Battle Salmon (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as an event considered notable by many primary news sources as well as the USAF. Also notable for crossover between "Internet culture" and "real life", and mainstreaming "Naruto" who is apparently a fast runner. vsync (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep If we have an article for Dat Boi, there is no reason to not have an article for something which is getting significantly more media coverage, even if that coverage is somewhat repetitive as of yet. Daemok (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It's yuge!!! <b style="color: red;">Ե</b> րևանցի  talk 09:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be enough media coverage.  Ss  112   11:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Although this may be just a meme right now, I expect a lot of serious people to come to Area 51 and demand “to see them aliens”. I suggest we wait until September 21 to see if we should delete the article and leave it as a footnote in Area 51 KingSkyLord (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * as has been pointed out several times above,this event is either notable and deserves an article now, in which case it should stay, it's not notable enough for an article on its own in which case it should have a mention, or it might be notable in the future in which case an article should be written then... but there is no "wait and see" on Wikipedia. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL.  IMO that's why the best argument is "a note on the Area 51 page THEN if something happens you make a new article."  Logical and in compliance with standard practices. JamesG5 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are a lot of keep comments the closer will have to outright dismiss here in terms of WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS policy much less GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. For all of the arguments about foresight, the article *is* written to make clear both that the event hasn't happen yet and that its eventuality is uncertain. Can't help but think of article on 2020 United States presidential election—if the article is mostly about the media coverage and response, I think it's fine for now. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO you make exactly the argument for why we shouldn't keep it. Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme or similar sites, it's not supposed to be a repository of every whacky internet fad.  Part of the reason it's not taken seriously or given credence as legitimate is because of too much attention given to trivial things.  You literally just compared a joke internet event to a presidential election.  We KNOW the latter is going to happen, and it will have an effect on a lot of lives.  This doesn't compare at all, and treating equally makes this whole site look like a joke. JamesG5 (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page not the official article, and my reference was for example—it was intended just to demonstrate that yes sometimes anticipated events do get articles. I made no claims about significance or actual equivalence, merely that the article is written appropriately for its tentative status. Replace with whatever other example you find less offensive and the argument still stands, humor aside. —Wingedserif (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be controversial, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the 2020 Presidential Election is probably a real event that will actually happen. I don't think it's a short-lived joke. ApLundell (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral Personally I don't think it will happen because it's just a stupid way to get their fifteen minutes of fame. If this is kept, can we at least rename it to "Raiding Area 51 meme" or something shorter than this. HawkAussie (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. De Guerre (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait 6 months / keep for now. See RAPID.  This is a classic issue Wikipedia has: some breaking piece of news happens, and it's not clear whether it's a 15 minutes of fame deal that should be justly deleted as WP:NOTNEWS or an actual event.  The solution is easy: just give it a little time.  If this event blows over, then merge it to Area 51, no big deal.  If this event actually happens, there'll already be an existing article to build off of.  Weirder, seemingly more trivial stuff has become real events worthy of articles before.  SnowFire (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Some !delete voters have brought up WP:CRYSTAL, both here and on the talk page.  But CRYSTAL really is about sourcing, and there's actually been an expansion of sourcing with articles in the likes of the NY Times and the like.  It's okay to have sourced commentary about potentially future events, and to the extent this is about a meme, it's something that's happening right now.  (Also, in reply to ILIKEIT accusations, at risk of pointing out the obvious, there's sourced content that meets WP:GNG that is stupid as hell.  Not "i like it", more like "it's stupid but sourced.")  SnowFire (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - There's pages on Wikipedia for memes that have garnered much less popularity and media attention. So far, this has proved to be the meme of 2019, with plenty of reliable sources describing the phenomenon and also starting somewhat of a craze, inspiring similar events around the globe. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh we do essentially non-existing things all the time, so why not here. There's a bunch of votes here, in either direction, that comment on whether or not this will happen, how stupid it is, etc.--sounds LIKE A BUNCH OF BOOMERS BEFORE NAP TIME. These things don't matter--what matters is coverage, and our bar is generally so low that this passes in flying colors: the coverage is there. So keep, and I'm not just saying that cause I'm going. With, if he can stop being all wise and mature for a day. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above arguments.  Jezebelle  19:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as the event hasn't happened and isn't itself notable (GNG doesn't reach that low). All the keep arguments I've seen are variations of OTHERCRAPEXISTS and ILIKEIT, neither of which are valid. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per above comments. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As I've so far counted (may be wrong), I see 31 keep / weak keep with 5 for keep or merge, opposed to 18 for delete / merge / redirect (three categories combined). Other comments such as "neutral" omitted. I'm aware of WP:NOTDEM, just wanted to point out a consensus seems to be building. Please let me know if my numbers are off. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 02:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of those keeps will be essentially tossed out in terms of Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. It's not uncommon at all for hot topics to get a bunch of votes like that which amount to strawpolling. In the end, the policy-based discussion mostly revolves around outright deletion or just having the redirect to Area 51, which unfortunately the closer has to take a bit more effort than normal to sort through. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because their is a majority for keep so far does not mean that it will be kept. There is some comments which is just adding no new info into this discussion which isn't something that we would want to pursuit. HawkAussie (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to have to believe you somehow missed the part where I wrote . Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 23:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: It should be on Wikipedia.Sadsadas (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete it should be mentioned on the area 51 article, this is just a fad.
 * Keep: Why deletion? Notable event, people talk about that. --Foghe (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated in the nom, it was put up here due to WP:NOTNEWS, which a lot of keep votes are ignoring the spirit of and directly contradicts many of the comments here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: I understand the not news argument, but this is being covered a little more than a typical news story or meme. It's incredibly well-sourced thus far whether people actually like it or not. I'm not really against a merge either. Handoto (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.