Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whose Responsible This

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. Arguments for keeping the article are almost all irrelevant or non-existant. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whose Responsible This

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

Recently created Internet meme. Plenty of sources, but all of them are either primary or blogs. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The meme is picking up momentum, there is even a dedicated website now (www.whoseresponsiblethis.com). I suggest we give it some time. Plus, it's hilarious :) PervyPirate (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "dedicated source" by this name would inherently qualify as a primary source here, and that would leave the meme without a reliable secondary source. The fact the meme is "picking up momentum" is not enough for this to qualify as notable; it merely means that the meme could become notable enough for an article in the future. In either case, we do not accept articles about stuff that will become notable in the future (no matter how likely) until that future becomes present. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree obviously that speculation shouldn't play a part in this decision per WP:CRYSTAL. But over the course of roughly 24 hours, three more secondary sources have already popped up, as I've posted below. Friginator (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- reply - "picking up momentum" is just another variation on "up and coming"! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone agrees with you there. But the meme has already generated enough sources to be considered notable. There isn't any good reason to delete the article in my opinion. Wikipedia is intended to provide helpful information based on established material, which is what an article like this does. Deleting an article like this one with no critical flaws is unconstructive. Friginator (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love TR dearly (and comment there regularly), but I'm not convinced there are enough reliable sources to warrant an article at this time. We don't document memes as they're picking up momentum, we document them after they've become established. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No valid sources for notability claims. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One non-primary source is not enough to establish as a notable meme. Note, recommend redoing a Google News search before closing in 7 days to determine if it has gained anything (as it seems to be relatively recent), but I suspect this is too niche to really build on. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, there are now a few more non-primary sources just a day later. In addition to cleaning up the article, I've recently added links to a page detailing the meme on Comedy Central's website, as well as links to articles about the meme from Know Your Meme, Manolith and Kombo, a gaming website. Friginator (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When it really becomes a notable meme, you can recreate the page and even complain about the disbelief of those who caused the first version to be removed. Fbergo (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several valid sources from different websites, not just primary sources. Improving the article would be more constructive than deletion. I would also suggest that we give it some time. Friginator (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - someome made a typo last week. Whoop-de-do. No reliable sources testifying to the notability of this. Memes come and go. Few stick around, and even fewer are worth writing about. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh... it was a lot more than just some random person making a typo. (the person is what you would call the best of the best). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fluff, with suspicions of attempts at some kind of viral marketing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not any solid evidence or reason for that. Speculation and suspicion shouldn't play a part in this discussion. Friginator (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis has become a full-blown meme, and is starting to inspire spin-offs and secondary effects.MWShort (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My head says delete but my heart says keep. If it makes any difference it has a mention in the mainstream media. AniMate^draw 07:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After this debate is closed, I think a way forward for those who want to keep this article might be to write an article on Topless Robot. It is a blog of some note, and the story surrounding the meme would fit in quite nicely in an overall discussion of the blog. AniMate^draw 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stop trying to control Wikipedia you information Stasi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinkent (talk • contribs)
Keep- Avast there ya landlubbers,I votes we keep it. Sochwa (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a fan of Topless Robot, and their FFF, but this does not currently meet the standards, and arguments that "it is building steam" are irrelevant. If it ever gets covered by external notable sources, then it could be resubmitted for inclusion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly meets the standards for notablility. Guardian.co.uk, the National Post, Kombo.com, Manolith.com and Comedy Central's website all have pages detailing it. People are selling t-shirts on several websites. There are various YouTube videos. It has its own website unaffiliated with Topless Robot. It's aknowledged as a meme on "Know Your Meme." All of this obviously qualifies the article per WP:MEMES. Friginator (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: since when does wikipedia have such high standards?

Keep Has secondary sources: The Guardian, National Post, Comedy Central. Picking up steam; probably more sources before this closes. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2009 (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.