Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourist guy (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  keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tourist guy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

DELETE. Subject lacks non-trivial coverage and is hardly encyclopedic anyhow. I think enough time has passed that this can be evaluated fairly. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes the general notability guideline. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 09:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Character also has an entry on Who2:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPNic (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lacks non-trivial coverage? What's this then? I wouldn't call The Guardian trivial. I found that after reviewing the previous AfD for this article - which happened to have a pretty clear consensus in favor of keeping this article. It may be "old" but that's no reason to delete it if it received any significant press coverage, which it did. If you review the previous AfD, there are more links to media coverage which I'm not going to bother linking here. I was also interested to note that JBsupreme was also the deletion nominator for the first AfD.  Neil   Clancy  16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since I agree with nominator. There's not enough serious discussion to make this throwaway phenomenon notable. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well known phenomenon that still receives coverage 8 years later.  69.253.207.9 (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability (e.g. Guardian)  Chzz  ►  01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides the sources in the article, there are several books that discuss the picture:, , , etc. (The first even says that it "may be the most widely known 'urban legend' or hoax on the Internet".) Zagalejo^^^ 04:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability. You could argue that internet memes in general are 'not encyclopaedic', but in that case, as list of Internet phenomena shows, you've got a long fight ahead of you... Robofish (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough. -- RUL3R *flaming 21:13, 28 July 2009 (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.