Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awkward Animals

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. Wizardman 19:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward Animals

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

Meme appearing to fail notability guidelines per no significant secondary source coverage. Only incoming article links are from Gesture (appended See Also link) and List of gestures. haz (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't even make that much sense...clearly a non-notable meme lacking the coverage needed to meet WP:N -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article is badly written doesn't inherently reflect on the notability (or, more importantly, verifiability) of the meme. The most prominent published references I can find are by Matt Yglesias (on his Atlantic blog) and the article he references in the Brown Daily Herald (a student newspaper). I'll leave it up to others to determine whether those add up to verifiability. If kept, it should certainly be renamed to "Awkward turtle", as the other variants seem to have no significance that goes beyond being made up in school one day. rspεεr (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep - I think there are sufficient WP:RS to establish notability. But the article should be stubbed down to what can be sourced. (Hint: the "sexual tension squid" cannot be.) The article should probably also be moved to "Awkward turtle." — æk ^Talk 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Actually a re-creation of the long-since deleted and salted "Awkward Turtle" article (see AFD1 and AFD2) but this is arguably even worse because it has even more nonsensical crap ("sexual tension squid"?) crammed into it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There simply isn't enough significant coverage of this in reliable sources to sustain an article. It is currently sourced to a student-written article (same article linked from two different sites to make it look like two sources), and the best additional sources anyone can find are another student article and a blog post that consists of little more than a link to a YouTube video. This isn't a hoax, but it isn't notable either. The previous AFDs linked by Andrew acknowledged this, and the new title appears to be an end run around the salting. --RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, not enough reliable sources, and I think some of it's just plain made up, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:RS. Not enough sources. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 20:18, 21 December 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.