Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distracted boyfriend meme

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) DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distracted boyfriend meme

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Are we for real?

I am usually open to adding topics that were traditionally unencyclopedic to Wikipedia, but this? It's not Pepe the Frog or even Wojak, it's just your average fad that held for a few months and now is mostly gone...

Are we playing a substitute of KnowYourMeme now? And if this should pass the notability checklist then where are the limits? When does a meme become important enough to be featured as a standalone article on Wikipedia?

P.S. I am quite shocked noone has proposed deleting this page before, or even flaunted such action.. In fact, the talk page of the article is entirely blank... Openlydialectic (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This wasn't just your regular flash-in-the-pan meme. It's significant in that it showed a shift to object-labeling memes. It also has lots of sources to meet WP:GNG. ^Falling_Gravity 06:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep. Article easily demonstrates notability and the meme was making headlines just a few months ago, so not "mostly gone" as the nom suggests. PC78 (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has continued coverage and significance. wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently sourced. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The talk page for the article is not entirely blank, as the nomination claims; it records the appearance of the article at DYK. Pepe the Frog and Wojak appeared at DYK too but the article in question beat them, getting more views than both combined... Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet meme. What we have here is a valuable example that illustrates this type of meme. It has a well documented life cycle, spinoffs, backlash, all that. But currently Internet meme is vague and overly generalistic. It needs at least one section that covers an example in full detail. Over at Distracted boyfriend meme we have a kind of thinly-written article that struggles to stand on its own, and will probably always struggle to rise much further beyond a C-grade not-a-stub. Size after a merge is no issue: even if no overlap were eliminated in a merger, 2,000 words + 1,000 words is only 3,000 words, far below any rule of thumb maximum. Put the two together and you get one article with some meat to it, which can mention in passing specific memes like Pepe, surgery on a grape, etc, while going deep into one of them in order to produce an article of substance. No amount of copy editing is going to turn either of the two in to a GA, but merge the best of them, and with a little work we'd have something good. Just because a topic passes GNG doesn't mean we have to maintain a separate page. Often the encyclopedia is just better if we don't. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the Internet meme article isn't relevant here, see WP:RELART. wumbolo ^^^ 21:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is relevant. Merging is relevant to AfD, and the merits of a merge depend on the two articles in question, and the merits of the resulting third article. See WP:MERGEREASON. WP:RELAR is irrelevant. I never claimed there is a content fork, and so refuting that is a red herring. You're entirely free to disagree with my view that a merge is the best choice. If you have sound arguments against merging, please feel free to share them. But you have no basis to invalidate my opinions this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep. Highly notable photograph whose meme has been covered by sufficient significant independant quality sources. Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For an article of this type, the sourcing and detail of what has gone into it is unlike most meme articles and is overall great. Still being used plenty today, likely will continue to be used in the future. Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to this debate because I wanted to find out about this meme via Wikipedia. It's had plenty of serious news coverage, which is cited in the article. Alarichall (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time magazine [1], CNN [2], and others give it significant coverage. WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 12:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability supported by secondary sources. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.