Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Like button

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. At the very least, there is none for deletion. As far as merging is concerned, that can continue to be discussed on the appropriate article talk pages. –MuZemike 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like button

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

This nomination can and will most likely be a shit storm easily because of it's usage by THAT site alone. The question remains however, if the lowly like button is notable enough on it's own. I believe while it should be mentioned on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be a independent article. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 01:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Facebook. Non-notable...um, thing per WP:NWEB. The only notability of the subject results from inherited notability from the main subject, Facebook. HurricaneFan 25 02:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified of this discussion because I created the page (as a redirect to Facebook features#Like). I think it was a reasonable decision then and I think it's still a reasonable decision now. I don't think a separate article is needed when you can incorporate this content so neatly into a larger, more substantial piece. For those of you simply skimming this bullet for a vote, redirect to Facebook features#Like. There you go. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like —Emufarmers^(T/C) 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More can be said on this company's button then any other share icon. — Dispenser 02:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like buttons are not ubiquitous to Facebook - most message boards have a similar function, as does (I think) Tripadvisor and other well know sites. Whilst I accept a component of a greater part can be notable (see e.g. clutch), a sub-type of that component is just stretching it too far for me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whichever article most broadly addresses the phenomenon of conveying impressions about something on the Internet by clicking a handy button, whether it be a "like", "upvote", "+1", and so forth. If no such article exists, it needs to be written. The phenomenon as a whole is notable; this particular instance of it is not notable independent of the phenomenon. bd2412 T 03:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The "like" button has become so commonplace in American culture that even The New York Times references it as its own identity, without needing to acknowledge the connection to Facebook or any other specific social medium. (Article here.) — Michael J 05:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Facebook. I cannot see how this particular feature of Facebook would be notable enough to merit its own article. JIP | Talk 06:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hear what has been said above, especially the former decision to go with a redirect, which was surely good at the time. But by today the 'Like button' has become a standard feature of websites of all kinds, i.e. it has grown out of its original home and has become Notable in its own right. (Doesn't mean I like it though! - but that is NOT an argument) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Annoying the concept may be, but there are a number of online news articles specifically about the 'like' button. As others have pointed out already, it is a concept that is spreading rapidly to other websites. Similar to the Smiley it is a growing part of our culture. Sionk (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above to Facebook. Even if other internet entities use this concept, this specific name is representative of Facebook. If it was generic enough to include all instances of "like button"-like buttons it would still have to pass WP:WEB and would require independent coverage (that is, coverage of the concept itself rather than coverage in the context of the aforementioned book of faces). §everal⇒|Times 00:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect to) Facebook features#Like.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per Dispenser and ample coverage in reliable, secondary sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Those were the best I found in five minutes of searching; there are lots more. Whether you Like it or not, Facebook's Like button is and will remain an important development in the history of the web. – Pnm (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are certainly reliable sources, yes, but they all discuss the like button in the context of how Facebook uses it. Is the concept of the like button ever discussed independently of Facebook? §everal⇒|Times 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not generically, I don't think. I refocused the article to be about Facebook's feature. Certainly when enough other sources discuss these in a group it could be moved to something like Facebook Like button and a more general article created in its place. – Pnm (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if the article is about upvoting in general, per bd2412's comment above Social news, share icon, and wikt:upvote are candidates. If the article is specifically about Facebook's upvoting feature, then it should be Merged into Facebook Woz2 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 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.