Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife guy

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. WP:SNOW close - consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. No support found for arguments given for deletion. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wife guy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article on term that has little to no actual real world presence / relevance outside of a very niche audience on Twitter and, at best, minor humor articles on other websites. Simply put, while I hate to be a downer to a funny page - legitimizing phrases like "Antoine Lavoisier, noted as history's first wife guy." via having a Wikipedia article would indicate this website has about the same threshold for relevance as KnowYourMeme. As a further note, the popular (And admittedly normally quite good) twitter account Depths of Wikipedia has recently posted the article, so expect some recent attention to the article. *I'd also like to edit in to note that, in the replies of the aforementioned tweet there are users calling to 'defend the article' so, this may not be the most impartial time for a deletion nomination. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. What one thinks of a topic and how it is used in the "real world" or otherwise is not relevant for inclusion. What matters is whether it is notable enough that reliable sources have covered it in depth (WP:N). That is the case here, as is evident from the references in the article, e.g.:

Hess, Amanda (5 June 2019). "The Age of the Internet 'Wife Guy'". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 June 2019.
Roberts, Meghan (2022-02-14). "How Enlightenment Wife Guys Paved the Way for Instagram PDA". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
or, covering the notability of the topic directly: Schwedel, Heather (10 June 2019). "What Is the "Wife Guy"? At Least Five New Articles Have Answers for You!". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 11 June 2019. Sandstein 14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I appear to be so far outnumbered in my petition for deletion I would ask if, per this criteria - if there are little/no notable articles made on the phrase in the next 3~ years and it does not readily exist in use "in the real world", would you still consider it worthy of keeping?

Despite recent references that technically fulfill the 'letter of the law' for relevancy, the article if nothing else seems to (at least in my view) suffer from Recentism, more specifically the "transient merits" factor - in general not fulfilling the spirit of the law in my view. A MINOTAUR (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism seems to apply to stuff that is momentarily notable. If something that was first described as early as 2016, and 6 years later in 2022, it seems that it’s not a recent thing at all. I could name loads of things that currently are on Wikipedia that aren’t necessarily in the public consciousness at all. I don’t think AFD is the place to litigate how we think notability guidelines should change. We have a standard right now that is pretty objective, and trying to base deletions on future predictions of notability is a lot more difficult to apply. ForksForks (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable- NY Times, NY Mag, The Outline Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the caveat that I am the one who added the image caption. Per the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources and the constant references to it in media it's hard to argue against the notability. I don't really think Wikipedia should avoid things that can be funny in a dry, encyclopedic way. Some parts of history or life are just amusing, and I don't think we should intentionally obfuscate that. ForksForks (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Sandsteins' sources. Nom's rationale seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a valid rationale. Jumpytoo Talk 19:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. A MINOTAUR (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note article has been linked to by the @depthsofwiki Twitter account. Juxlos (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD seems to have been caused by the twitter posting given the text of the nom ForksForks (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is notable due to the presence of reliable coverage, as noted by other users. The article certainly does have problems with its meme-like sensationalism and focus on certain niche aspects of this topic, but these should be fixed through avenues other than deletion. Mysteryman blue 01:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is stupid, but that's not a reason for deletion and it seems to pass GNG, unfortunately. Smartyllama (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well used term for years, tons of reliable sources. Blythwood (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2022 (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.