Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finger box

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 merge/redirect to Ay-O. I'm pretty much going to move the entire article over, it may need to be trimmed and/or rewritten to fit well in its new home. Coverage of the internet meme should probably be added if sources can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finger box

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

This was tagged as being a possible hoax, but a cursory check online suggests that it may be a legitimate thing after all (a Google test returned 31 million hits, including a Yahoo! Answers question). I think that this implies some notability, so I am opting for an afd rather than moving forward with the cds request. I have no opinion on the article's content, I'm just working to clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete AND protect see [[1]]. It is a meme/hoax. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, that article from Know Your Meme specifically states that the origin of the current 4chan fingerbox meme was real fingerboxes created by Ay-O. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten since I made my original comment. Better now, but still lacks notability and is prime target for vandalism. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It states that it was "Updated Jan 08, 2011 at 01:59AM UTC by Don". The Internet Archive doesn't have this page stored, so I can't verify if there was an change made without the notification being applied. Possible vandalism isn't a valid deletion rationale. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the wikipedia article had been rewritten. You are right about vandalism not being a reason for deletion. Let me say it better: 1. I believe the article should be deleted because even the correct information does not meet notability. 2. If it is kept, the article should be protected due to the fact that the term "fingerbox" is primarily being used as a "lulzcow" currently. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or marge to List of Internet phenomena: even if the original Ay-O art can be proven as a hoax (which doesn't seem likely), the current meme based on it seems to have some notability. At the very least, it is worthy of a redirect. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or possibly merge to Ay-O. The artwork is not a hoax: the Hannah Higgins book cited in the article can be read at Google Books [2] and there are other books about Fluxus that also discuss the Finger Boxes.[3]. This is legit content, although perhaps it would fit just as well at the artist's article. I don't see the evidence in reliable sources for the hoax/meme's notability, but perhaps I am missing something.--Arxiloxos (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the article on the artist. Yes it we should cover it, but while it remains an idiosyncratic style, it does not need a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'merge to the BLP subject. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per the above merges.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2011 (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.