Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (3rd 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 no consensus. A bold merger or redirect can take place outside of the AfD, and if that is objected to, a discussion/RfC can take place on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

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

Just simply does not meet WP:Notability. If anything, it should be merged into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. While it can be argued that it meets WP:GNG, so does President Trump's penis, but it's not notable enough to have a separate article.. KingForPA (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. See also: WP:NTEMP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has sufficient Notability under WP:Notability. Numerous articles have been written with more than "trivial mentions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorFreedom (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4].[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – I'm for whatever, but judging from the general consensus of the three prior nominations it seems like it has garnered enough attention to merit further discussion. also, a similar discussion is taking place via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Singles for Bernie Singles.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 11:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Inappropriate renom with no new justification. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Internet_memes. Not independently notable; a couple of sentences would suffice. Wikipedia is not know-your-meme indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FloridaArmy and NorthAmerica1000. No new reasons that would change the outcome of an AfD from the last two times. Davey2116 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016 or Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Internet_memes. That is what is notable here. This Facebook group is just one minor example of the role of social media and internet memes in the 2016 election. 23:22, 5 February 2018 (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.

[1] ttps://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d7ypwa/bernie-sanders-dank-meme-stash-facebook-page

[2] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/23/how-bernie-sanders-became-the-lord-of-dank-memes/?utm_term=.047dc29f5995

[3] ttps://www.dailydot.com/unclick/socialists-seizing-memes-production/

[4] ttp://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sites/bernie-sanders-dank-meme-stash

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]