Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash Doves

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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Doves

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

I don't think that this article meets the notability guidelines. Ethanlu121 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject has significant coverage from reliable sources, and does pass WP:GNG. It needs work, though. MereTechnicality ⚙ 15:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be hasty - While it's clear that there is coverage from at least slightly reliable sources, this seems to be a case of recentism - just a passing fad. If it becomes anything larger and gets more coverage from more serious sources then I'd !vote for a keep, but if the fad dies down then I might have to reconsider. Pishcal (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I disagree with the notion directly above stating "slightly reliable sources". The topic meets WP:GNG, having received enough coverage in reliable sources around the world to qualify for an article. See examples below. See also: Notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep I've expanded the article a lot, using some of the references above and some I've found while Googling the meme. I feel not only does the article achieve notability (which I believe it did before I expanded it), but now I think it has sufficient enough content to completely warrant its inclusion. Soulbust (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The expanded article demonstrates notability, and has a ton of reputable sources. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:09, 22 February 2017 (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.