Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clown world

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. T. Canens (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clown world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An anonymous buddy on WP:Discord had concerns about this article. Its own references include Paul Joseph Watson, another YouTube video, and Big League Politics. The prod was contested, but there still is no claim in the article to any sort of relevance, notability, or lack of POV. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We are not Know Your Meme. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Lacks notability and we are indeed not Know Your Meme. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNP. No evidence that there has been any significant impact of this meme. If something happens to propel it into the mainstream in the way Pepe the Frog or NPC have been it should be reconsidered but at this point I don't see how this is notable. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 06:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is claim to notability such as it is, that the concept is being used as a yardstick (for lack of a better word) by multiple authors with large audiences, and is being characterised politically. Those arguing for deletion, please link to relevant wikipedia rules at all times. Some of us are not as well versed as others.Asgrrr (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asgrrr: Hey there! There are a few rules with this type of thing, but the most relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability. You may also like to read the deletion policy which has the most important, top-level, information concerning article deletion on Wikipedia. In reference to your exact concern, WP:NOTINHERITED would be a good start (whereas a notable person might discuss a variety of topics, but those topics as themselves are not inherently notable). There are several alternatives to deletion you may also want to consider in response to the concerns brought up here. I hope this helps! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Coverage in reliable sources is lacking and the sourcing in the article are of questionable reliability. Disclosure: referred to her on Discord. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Nowhere close to being notable. X-Editor (talk) 16:03, 8 June 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.