Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Meme War


 * 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. Consensus seems clear that the topic lacks the in-depth coverage in reliable sources necessary to establish significance. Opinions that the topic is "interesting" and unsourced claims that it "influenced the election" just don't cut it. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Great Meme War

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was likely going to be sent to AfD anyways so I might as well start it. It'd be nice to have an article on this, but as far as I'm concerned, it fails WP:NOTNEWS. The two sources in the article are just about the only sources about this entire thing; all other sources are from Reddit, some other non-notable blog, or a reliable source that mentions the meme war in passing. Alternatively, and if that article is kept pending the AfD, this could be merged into r/The Donald, since all sources puts the subreddit as the cause of this war. JudgeRM  (talk to me)  02:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  JudgeRM   (talk to me)  02:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  JudgeRM   (talk to me)  02:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Joke article. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Should be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your comments, and when you neglect to, please don't revert other editors' attempts to add . —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not really a joke if many major sources cover it, do you have a proper reason for deletion? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop voting if you base your vote on intuition, have no knowledge of an article's topic and apparently haven't looked it up. It's not a joke. --Fixuture (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is in fact a joke, and no reliable sources cover it. In addition to being a joke, it fails WP:GNG. In case you're having trouble identifying reliable sources, the Daily Pakistan article, “Daddy, what did you do in ‘The Great Meme War’?” Dank memes become part of history, is not a reliable source. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why exactly, Ramaksoud2000? Be specific. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Pepe may have helped Trump win the election, but an idea of a "meme war" is not encyclopedic, especially when the "best" source is this article by Mashable. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Should be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs)
 * Why wouldn't it be encyclopedic? Also it's called so by supporters who took part - it's not necessarily to be considered a "meme war" in general. --Fixuture (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Beause the so-called "Great Meme War" hasn't been reported by any reliable sources. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article covers a historical event and is well-sourced. It meets notability considering it influenced the outcome of a presidential election. 108.27.213.13 (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * — 108.27.213.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You seem to be supporting the author quite a bit. Are you the author editing logged out? --  numbermaniac  ( talk ) 10:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looked it up and its a United States IP, doesn't belong to me. Also if that was me I would have been editing at 5:40 in the morning, in the christmas holidays? Who do you think i am? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources on the article, passes WP:GNG. I will expand further today because there is more reliable sources. I would also like to point out there is some interest in an article like this, within less than a single day it has received | Almost 700 unique visits(On the first of January 2017, it recived almost 8,000 clicks, 8x more than John Kanisch), which is massive, and within it's first day its almost ahead of popular politicians like John Kasich for daily views. This should definitely be considered in this discussion.AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)  JudgeRM   (talk to me)  18:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * AlessandroTiandelli333, as it turns out, no, it shouldn't be considered at all, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with notability (see also WP:POPULARPAGE). Timothy Joseph Wood  15:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Should be discounted per WP:JNN AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you continue to tag every single "delete" !vote with "should be discounted" you're going to be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard for interfering with an Articles for Deletion discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a joke, and simply is not notable enough. Memes did not influence the result of the election, and something as silly as people fighting each other with memes is not worthy of an article. --  numbermaniac  ( talk ) 10:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Should be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs)
 * It's not a joke. Even if online meme media wasn't part of the influence of the election (imo it's just a matter of extent) it's notable if there are enough reports on it etc. People did not fight each other with memes - people were using memes to (make it look like there was strong) support for a candidate from a specific generation of people online. Please do not vote based on intuition. --Fixuture (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If its not important why did DARPA bother to write | a government report on it? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep notable enough, see:, , , --Fixuture (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Among the sources you provided, sources #'s 1 and 3 appear to be more about r/The Donald than the Great Meme War; source #2 only mentions the war in passing, and thus cannot be used to determine notability. Only the fourth source appears to talk about the Great Meme War in detail, but one source is not enough "significant coverage" to qualify for WP:GNG. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  16:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, the fourth source, “Daddy, what did you do in ‘The Great Meme War’?” Dank memes become part of history, is not a reliable source. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin Users using the rational that it should be deleted because it is a "joke" should be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, to quote the page: "The terms "unencyclopedic", and its flip-side "encyclopedic", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions. What we need to know are the specific reasons why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant." AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep there is even RS that this has "gone mainstream". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC).


 * No, that source only mentions the meme war in a trivial passing, and thus can't be used to determine notability. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete It doesn't appear to in fact a joke, and even if it was that doesn't preclude notability in principle. As pointed out above, not encyclopedic means very little in way of argument. Also, whether it is in fact had a measurable impact on the election...it may actually be a false claim, but it can be a false claim and also be a notable topic.


 * So with those out of the way, discounting sources which have only trivial mention or otherwise are about a different subject all together, the current article seems to rest on The Epoch Times, which appears to be of questionable reliability, and The Daily Pakistan. The DP may be a reliable source, but even if it is, if you are relying on one of the top newspapers of Pakistan as a central source for an article on American politics, it's probably a good indication that the subject has not received sufficient coverage to be notable.


 * At this point, the sourcing provided is not enough to establish that the name of the article is not a neologism, much less that the subject itself is notable. I haven't found much else, and it doesn't look like anyone in this protracted discussion has either. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Delete this and I bring the GNAA back to life, this is a threat. incog (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

*Keep Not a joke article. Homph (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC) — Homph (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This user has made no edits other than this and de-redding their user and talk pages. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - The subject of this article does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. References provided do not meet the threshold for Wikipedia's Reliable Sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5 news sources is more than enough for WP:GNG, you have to give a reason why they are not reliable AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't "have to" do anything. Head on over to WP:RS and have a read. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the first writer. I honestly have not heard anyone else use this term, outside of certain alt-right circles on Reddit. I would, to be generous, file this a "new word/term,"WP:NEO used exclusively by a certain political subset.. To be honest, I think the main problem is embodied in the last sentence: "It is yet to be seen whether these tactics will work as well in Europe as they claim to have done in the United States" It is a persistent claim of the alt-right, made without any evidence, that their memes have been a major factor, if not the major factor, for President-elect Donald Trump's win in 2016. This article seems to be writteninn order to pump up their image.
 * Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousemenace (talk • contribs) 20:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, when one types up the term in google, all you get are Pro-Donald Trump Reddit discussion boards and marginal right-wing websites supporting PEOTUS Trump using the term,implying that it is a certain form of jargon on the radical right.

Again, to be generous, I would suggest that we modify this under an article detailing the alt-right, or under the section of r/thedonald on the Donald Trump's 2016 campaign page, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#.2Fr.2FThe_Donald_subreddit.) I have also taken the liberty to change the tone of the article to make it more neutral, as well as to make clear that this is a term used by few. For example, I have changed the first sentence from "The Great Meme War was an Internet campaign.." to "The Great Meme War is the term made in some internet circles to refer to memes made to support Donald Trump and sway the result of the United States presidential election of 2016."

I have a great deal of personal reservations about this article. But I would want more feedback before anything else is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousemenace (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that mousemenace (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * The article should be modified, but not removed. I'm a relative outsider in the Wikipedia community, but I believe we can all agree that the proliferation of insular social media clusters and their invented cultural symbols -- memes -- was a notable phenomenon. This ought to be categorized underneath a subsection of Internet culture, if you're not willing to associate it with the 2016 American Presidential election.24.40.80.245 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.40.80.245 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.


 * Clearly what we need here are more socks and IPs. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep An interesting footnote in history with multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydeio (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Boydeio (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.  Boydeio (talk · contribs) has made very few edits outside of the topic area, or at all, in fact.  JudgeRM   (talk to me)  02:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This article should be modified. This was indeed a major event in the political climate, and did in fact, have a lot of influence. However, its missing important information, such as raids against Hillary's instagram account and the accusations that CTR has been all over sites like 4chan. Maybe even Malik Obama can be brought up, as he discussed the great meme war before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novaklefki (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * — Novaklefki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note This is a discussion, not a vote. It doesn't matter how many Single Purpose Accounts say "Keep - this won the election" (which is just delusional) - all that matters are Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair there are also many delete votes that just say its a joke or not encyclopedic, which should also be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. At the moment I count more valid keep votes citing that it passes WP:GNG (Which i think it does) than valid delete votes. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're getting it. It's not the number of !votes that counts. It's the strength of the arguments that relate to policy that matter. I understand that you think the article passes the GNG - after all, you created the article in the first place - but repeating it ad nauseum has no more effect than saying it just once. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (or redirect) per Timothyjosephwood. A couple of short, borderline-reliable sources and passing mentions in some other sources are not enough to demonstrate the significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. At most, this could be redirected to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 or some other relevant article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject meets basic WP:GNG. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * :It's not really a joke if many major sources cover it Since there aren't many major sources covering, maybe it really is a joke. It certainly doesn't pass any reasonable reading of WP:GNG. So delete. --Calton | Talk 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I also was not canvassed Mousemenace (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2024 (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.