Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Banana (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 delete. (X! · talk) · @239 · 04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Banana

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

Nothing but a list of appearances, not a single source beyond knowyourmeme.com which doesn't look notable. Source 2 doesn't even mention it. Last AFD was no consensus due to a flood of "but it's notable, I like it, it's cool, blah blah blah" by people who don't understand the meaning of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN, WP:NONSENSE, and a gazillion other policies and essays that exist to prevent this kind of articles. Also, no point on covering every single emotion/animated gif in a separate article. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No nonsense Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ring ring ring banana phone is calling and wants his redirect back. JBsupreme (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability? PBJT is one of the best known, early "Internet memes" that spread beyond the Internet, and lives on with numerous meme-variations, including those animated emoticons. Why wouldn't Wikipedia keep an authoritative history of this influential (and yes, silly and maybe even annoying) piece of Internet culture? Taking on these obscure topics is a great part of Wikipedia's allure. Don't kill it. : 71.126.54.28 (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources then? Just saying it's notable doesn't make it so if you can't back up your paper-thin argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article already has more sources and citations than plenty of others (e.g. Fixation_(psychology) (hint intended) ) -- especially within this category of popular Internet memes. Is this third, redundant attempt to wipe out this article truly an attack on the article, or it really just an attack on the category? Notability is relative by category, and within its category, the Dancing Banana holds up just fine. Use your energy to document those sources and improve the article rather than rage on about why it should be deleted from this fine paperless encyclopedia.71.162.87.77 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see claims from the previous AFD that this is important but I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. Just for the record, the outome of the last AFD was "Keep", not "no consensus" (the first was closed as "no consensus"), and I don't feel it's helpful to describe 'keep' contributors from the last discussion, largely experienced and respected contributors, as "people who don't understand the meaning of notability".--Michig (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are reccommending to keep something on the basis of WP:ILIKEIT and not policy, I think that is an accurate assessment of their interpretation of our guidelines with respect to notability. JBsupreme (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not recommending keep, and I don't believe that either User:Mazca, User:Dhartung, or User:23skidoo's comments from the previous AFD could be described as WP:ILIKEIT. Stick to discussing the subject of the discussion rather than casting aspersions on other editors.--Michig (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL @ U. Seriously, I just read Mazca's comment and it is the most backhanded motion to "keep" I've ever read. In fact I think it could safely be interpreted as a veiled delete. JBsupreme (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "Stick to discussing the subject" do you not understand? We're not here to analyze the previous AFD.--Michig (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't. JBsupreme (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per comments made above. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's stupid, but notably so. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn and anecdotal. should have been speedy deleted.--camr ^nag 22:03, 11 August 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.