Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet

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. Catchy phrase, but nn.-- Balloonman (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Step 1) Come up with a catchy phrase about how Wikipedia will host whole articles on trivial nonsense and start a Facebook group about it.
Step 2) Start selling t-shirts with said catch phrase.
Step 3) Create article on Wikipedia about catch phrase.
Step 4) ???
Step 5) Profit!!!

Delete Seriously, are we going to catalogue every internet meme now? AlistairMcMillan 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is more needed to be said. Shoessss | Chat 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unimportant and not notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is cited by news articles and is notable. --Joebengo 22:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At most, this merits a brief mention in 2006 definition of planet#Impact. But it primarily seems to exist to promote a Facebook group. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less than 1000 google hits for "When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet" (don't forget the quotes) is hardly an internet phenomenon. Bobby1011 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. Gaius Cornelius 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB's criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it's interesting that 725,000 people noticed this on facebook.com, I agree with Dhartung that it rates no more than a sentence or two in the 2006 redefinition article. Mandsford 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I had no comment and the result would be 100% delete as there is NO SENSE to make an encyclopedia page about an online craze and the aftermath.--Quek157 06:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was very interested in the whole debate over Pluto at the time and I don't remember this phrase. A small mention in the main redefinition article at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberon (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with the sources, there's nothing to suggest this meme is notable. If it remains popular in a few years like "All Your Base" or the Hamster Dance, or gets picked up by a major movie, then let's revisit it. 23skidoo 21:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. Let them become famous and then we'll do an article about them. ScienceApologist 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is cited by news articles and is notable. DPCU 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' on the same reason that 23skidoo brings up Doc Strange 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greswik 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The media coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources cited in When_I_was_your_age,_Pluto_was_a_Planet#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability for this topic pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One dead link, one journalist's blog post and one PBS article. Hardly "significant media coverage". AlistairMcMillan 02:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two working links to articles concerning this subject in different reliable sources. Media coverage is no less significant because it is characterized as a "journalist's blog post" (the article is concededly written by a journalist, not by a blogger), or because it appears on PBS. John254 02:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I just fixed the broken link. That gives us articles concerning this subject in three different reliable sources, certainly sufficient to establish a presumption of notability pursuant to the general notability guideline. John254 02:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but an article in a college newspaper that briefly mentions the Facebook group (and seems to misunderstand the effort required to create said group), and quickly moves on... I'm still seeing how any of these links constitute "significant media coverage". AlistairMcMillan 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College newspapers can be reliable sources. I contend that all three articles, taken as a whole, constitute "significant coverage", even if none of them individually would. With regard to the claim that an article "seems to misunderstand the effort required to create said group", I note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If third party reliable sources treat a topic as notable by providing significant coverage of it, we should not be second-guessing that determination. John254 04:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we have to make room for every internet meme that pops up, we're going to quickly run out of it. HalfShadow 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTPAPER. John254 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have. And I quote:'This policy is not a free pass for inclusion.' HalfShadow 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPAPER councils against making the argument that articles should be deleted for the sole purpose of saving space on Wikipedia. John254 04:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the topic of Pluto's status as a planet (or otherwise) is clearly an encyclopaedic topic. This, however, isn't. --RFBailey 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: -- BSVulturis (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2007 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet

When I was your age, Pluto was a Planet

zproxy.org