Keep -- 1. If it were true, it would be notable. 2. I just found this and want to tease a couple Finnish friends, is there an option to Keep for a couple of days? 3. Seriously debating the notoriety of fleeting internet memes is only slightly less sad than discussing whether a young, female 'entertainer' has achieved a substantial enough oeuvre to qualify as notorious.11:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)38.26.26.150 (talk)
This lacks encyclopaedic notability. And even the map given uses Comic Sans. Not serious, not notable, not even very funny. -- Evertype·✆17:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage does exist, even if Finland doesn't. The cited December 2016 Vice article [1] is a solid, in depth source for this fake-news meme. A very recent article in The Guardian includes this one in an article about "controversial claims that the web especially seems to love". Searches turn up other articles about this in sources like Indy100. If another solid source or two can be turned up I'd probably !vote to keep. (And then I would have to figure out where I was, exactly, on that day a few years back when I thought I was in Helsinki staring at the head of Sibelius.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suppose my least favourite Wikipedia guideline WP:FRINGE applies here. Articles about conspiracy theories need a significant depth of sources, this was just a flash in the pan internet meme. And an article which gives this much weight to the views of the "conspiracy theory" certainly wouldn't be allowed for certain other "fringe" topics... – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even speedy delete. Obvious example of (mis)using Wikipedia for PR. Entirely non-notable (Reddit as a main source, really?) and only created to promote a non-notable artist. Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:FRINGE. Article gives way too much weight to a joke/hoax and takes it seriously. Article is written as if the theory is quite possibly true. There has been nowhere near enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has coverage, it is about an event that happened, that is even socially interesting (artificially started conspiracy theory to check how those things spread) and I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in a scientific paper or two. Izitpajn (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you "wouldn't be surprised" if this joke led to a "scientific paper or two" is not really convincing. You need to show that it has actually resulted in a scientific paper or two. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Izitpajn, kindly read WP:CRYSTAL. Speculating that something might become noticeable sometime in the future is not an argument to keep it. And it does not have coverage in any notable source except Guardian, and even there only mentioned in passing. It clearly is not notable now, and that is what counts. Needless to say, we do not have articles on every newborn baby in the world even though some of them no doubt will become notable, and their birth may have been included in a local paper... Jeppiz (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't even really rise to the level of a real conspiracy theory. It's a recent concoction, and is pretty much limited to a bunch of bored redditors playing fan-fiction with it. The aren't a significant number of legitimate nutters out there a la flat-earthers or Area 51-ers or such. It's essentially a wikipedia page about a reddit page that a couple people in the media were duped into thinking had serious participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UniNoUta (talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(not !voting, but...) Before reading this page, I clarified the list of claims to make clear that none of them are presented as factual. I don't think that'll change anyone's vote, but it might be worth considering. — Also, if the article is kept, I suggest changing the title from "Finland does not exist" to something that states explicitly that it's a hoax / conspiracy theory. --Thnidu (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whether it's a bona fide conspiracy theory (people really believe the Japanese invented Finland out of nothing to preserve fishing rights halfway across the planet) or a satire of conspiracy theories (some bored redditor decided to see if they could convince others that Finland is fiction, with hilarious results) the story has been reported in-depth by multiple news agencies generally considered reliable, and has been analyzed by well-known conspiracy debunking organizations. Some refs: [2][3][4][5][6][7], all from Google's first page. KnowYourMeme explains that this originated on Reddit in December 2014; the earliest of these refs I've posted is from December 2016 (two years later) and there has been consistent detailed coverage of the meme throughout 2017. This doesn't need to be Paul is dead to be a notable conspiracy theory, it meets our general criteria for notability, and notability is not temporary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am somewhat surprised that editors with at least some experience seem to think that being mentioned in the news is enough. It's not, please see WP:COVERAGE which clearly states "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable". We are nowhere near that here. While The Guardian is a good source, the fact that this joke has been mentioned in passing (in a list of a long row of other joke conspiracy theorists) doesn't come even near noticeable coverage. As for the other sources, they are either not really noticeable or they focus on the artist whose exhibition this is and would maybe be an argument for an article on the artist, but not on this. Once again, being mentioned in the news is not automatically an argument for being notable by Wikipedia standards. Especially not when the coverage is this limited. Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ivanvector, whose sources show that there is in-depth coverage from RS for this topic. The article content could be pruned to what is available in those RS, but that's not a matter for AFD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions05:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fast. I found out about this from a Facebook meme. Apparently this was created by trolls for a cheap Facebook meme.Dave (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
