Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer

Barbenheimer

[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)

Not sure why this article was created, this is just one of the dozens of viral phenomena/topics of discussion about film that emerge on the Internet every year. Typically, such memes are not notable to justify standalone articles and are simply discussed in their respective film articles; I don't see a reason this should be any different. It is unlikely that this topic will receive significant, sustained coverage, and even if it does, it is too early to tell at this stage, when neither film has even been released. With the current length of the article, it can easily be merged into Barbie (film) and Oppenheimer (film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and Internet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—as I have expressed on the talk page, this is not notable because it's a transient internet phenomenon that fails WP:20YT and which will be irrelevant come July 22. Culture journalists report on memes and internet fads all the time, but that doesn't make them all individually notable. I agree that this is best expressed in a sentence or two on the main articles of the two films, not in an independent article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Quick Snow Close to get rid of the huge tag on top of the page. This article is well sourced (The Guardian, New York Times, Evening Standard etc.), becoming better sourced by the day, is a bit of fun (haven't laughed so hard on Wikipedia as when preparing the opening image and its encyclopedic caption), and notable per topic, sources, and as a cultural phenomena. Let's close this down pretty quick, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you take any article of decent quality and cut-and-paste one of its sections, it would also make a well-sourced article. But the presence of sources doesn't necessarily demonstrate that a subject should have a standalone article; should we make articles for Cast of Oppenheimer (film), Marketing for Barbie (film), Production of Oppenheimer (film), etc. just because they would be well-sourced? No one is suggesting that this information isn't notable/noteworthy for inclusion on Wikipedia, but WP:N requires more than just being "notable" for there to be a standalone article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Randy Kryn. Article is sourced, and it's not the first article about a meme that would be irrelevant in (near?) future, so I don't even understand why it was proposed for deletion. Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Randy Kryn's argument on how incredibly well sourced it is with perennially reliable sources. GNG easily met. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - well sourced article. Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} Manasbose (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Saying that it is "unlikely that this topic will receive significant, sustained coverage" is too WP:CRYSTAL for my taste and the rest of the argument reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As an aside, I think Marketing for Barbie (film) has solid potential. I may change my opinion a few months from now, but it is certainly a keep right now. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think for the time being, the phrase can be covered in sections at both the Barbie and Oppenheimer articles succinctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — It is too soon to consider deleting or keeping this article. As mentioned previously, prudence suggests that waiting until the release of Barbie and Oppenheimer is the appropriate course of action. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Fails WP:10YT. Coining a cute term that describes what is essentially a routine blockbuster box-office rivalry does not somehow make it independently notable. Perfectly fine to mention in the two respective articles, where it can be boiled down to a single paragraph. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we have IGN from the tech side and Variety and the Hollywood Reporter from the entertainment side as sources, rest are about as good as those. This is a keep. Might be a fad, but it's more than well-discussed, it's all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it’s evolved beyond just being a phenomena now that there’s analysis being made over it. It just makes more sense to me to maintain its separate article than to footnote it onto both films pages. WP:GNG is satisfied in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 18:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly noteworthy per the current sources with plenty of room to expand in the coming months, and it doesn't really make sense to have this information at either film's article when it is equally about both. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To those who think this will soon be forgotten, the article draws an analogy to a similar case in 2008, or 15 years ago. So this too is likely to still be referred to years from now. LouScheffer (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The significant coverage received by this makes it more than just "just one of the dozens of viral phenomena/topics of discussion about film that emerge on the Internet every year". Only a very small number of such topics are discussed at length in mainstream media to the point where they become notable. I'm inclined to believe this is one of them.

PraiseVivec (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]