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)).

Josh fight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a single incident that fits in the category of transient "odd-but-true" entertainment-style "news" that has no encyclopedic or historical value. Yes, it has sufficient reliable sources and significant (recent) coverage. I can find as many reliable sources and significant coverage for an article on a dog rescued from the ice^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} which illustrates that just having reliable sources isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe this article fits into what Wikipedia is not. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I disagree... this article should not be deleted..unlike the other events..the Josh fight had many attendees and they managed to raise money for Charity...many people from across the world were interested in the event.. unfortunately many were unable to attend due to covid-19 restrictions in their country..It was an interesting event which a lot of people across the world watched through the livestream 41.223.141.80 (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I disagree, because this event has a lot more media coverage from around the world and not just outlets from North America, from a lot of reliable sources from Australia to Austin to Africa and India to Indonesia to Singapore. And why would we erase this knowledge from future generations? We have kept the Storm Area 51 event's page, why should this event be taken off? If anything, this one was far more significant, as it had a substantially higher number of participants and a similar level of media coverage. JoshFight (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The amount of media coverage it got is irrelevant. The issue is, does it have lasting notability? Did it have some sort of impact? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we have criteria for inclusion. ((u|Bowler the Carmine)) (they/them | talk) 13:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this article DOES indeed fit, due to the nature of articles such as the Crichton Leprechaun, Storm Area 51 Raid, and other notable comedic events that took place in modern history, that received significant media coverage existing without contest on Wikipedia. ~~DaneLawlor~~ [1][2] ~~DaneLawlor~~ [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.221.107 (talk • contribs) — 173.3.221.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I oppose deletion, as per what a few above have said, we have articles for the Area 51 raid, among others. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--v/r - TP 20:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No lasting notability can be determined at this time. While it basically meets WP:GNG, yes, but all of the sources are within 2 days. This is a flash-in-the-pan. If it's still being talked about in a year, create an article then.--v/r - TP 20:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should we wait one year for this>
• Delete per nom and TParis. If this doesn't fall off within a few months, then we can reconsider, but for now it seems a touch too soon. It's also very hard to take the article seriously with things like "Decisive Josh victory", a listing of belligerents ("1 Josh", "Hundreds of Joshes" etc), and the use of ((Infobox military conflict)) for a meme that was decidedly not a military conflict. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep seems to be appearing in numerous sources that establish notability, at least for now. If the only sources that can be found in a few months or so are the same sources published in the immediate aftermath of the event, then a reevaluation of notability and a renomination, if necessary, is always a possibility. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The ("1 Josh", "Hundreds of Joshes" etc) was newly–added vandalism. MainPeanut (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agreed that the use of that infobox was unconstructive, and I've changed it back. I don't think it should be regarded as relevant to this AfD either way. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article creator. I agree that the article has grown too long, and it should definitely be trimmed back to a more reasonable length. But WP:EVENT states that an event shouldn't be considered less notable just because it is recent. I think the widespread (including national) coverage of this event in reliable sources shows that it clearly passes the WP:GNG, as mentioned above. Wikipedia's coverage of Internet culture has remained sparse even as it has grown in importance in mainstream society. I think a short, well-sourced article is appropriate. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also note that the higher-than-average potential for this article to be the subject of unconstructive editing and vandalism, while annoying, should not be held against its notability. I created it in good faith and other Wikipedians have contributed in that spirit as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so you know, Ganesha811, my nomination has nothing to do with the quality of the article or sources. I think you wrote a good neutral article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Schazjmd, totally understood, your nomination is very fair and grounded in policy. I think there's cause for legitimate disagreement, so I'm not fussed. Just don't want to see the article deleted for the wrong reasons. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ganesha811: WP:EVENT also says, "However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)."--v/r - TP 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another sporadic internet meme event with no lasting significance. Some expected "human interest" or "good news that a four-year-old had fun 'winning'" sort of coverage (mostly local) but no enduring encyclopedic notability or reason to provide details for a brief WP:NEWS event. Sources are largely churnalism with negligible original reporting in most, reusing the same images and quotes. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (for now) Perfectly fine to keep it as per WP:EVENT and falls within the other guidelines as other editors have pointed out. This holds greater signification and wider interest+foreknowledge for a larger amount of the global population than many of the other articles on this site whether it's an indictment on humanity or not. Would not be totally opposed to deletion after a period of time if it does not remain a sustained news story.—Plifal (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with those who argue that if Storm Area 51 gets an article, so should this one. While the bar for Internet meme coverage is very high on Wikipedia, this one has strong significance for Internet culture; Internet culture has become increasingly impactful. Andymii (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I heard Josh fight referenced and didn’t know what it was. I searched Google and came to this article which explained the reference, which was useful. I’d like the article to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.153.83 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC) — 73.190.153.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep per WP:NEVENT. I'd like to note that neither NOTNEWS nor OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply here. NOTNEWS covers news-style reporting, not "don't write articles about recent events"; OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is...probably the single most subjectively interpretable essay, but quite decisively does not say "when people compare similar articles they're doing something wrong". Vaticidalprophet 22:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not pass the requirements set by NEVENT. There are no lasting effects (failing WP:LASTING), there is no impact over a wide geographic area (failing WP:GEOSCOPE), and the coverage has been in a burst rather than sustained coverage (failing WP:COVERAGE). --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes GNG and substantially covered by major reliable media outlets, both local and on a wider scale such as ESPN. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this event has gotten significant national and worldwide coverage, with outlets like Sky News (United Kingdom),^[1] CNN,^[2] CTV News (Canada),^[3] WION (India)^[4] Kumparan (Indonesia),^[5] Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung (Germany),^[6] the Japanese Yahoo,^[7] and even an outlet called Mothership based in Singapore.^[8] Out of the list of references from the dog being rescued from the ice, 5/10 of them are from Michigan (where the incident happened), 9/10 of them are from the United States, and the only reference that isn't from the United States is from neighboring Canada. I don't believe we can judge something on if it will be notable long–term right now. We should revisit this in 3 or 6 months. MainPeanut (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for reasons that have been listed before in this discussion. Wizzito (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the aforementioned reasons by others. This fight was reported by various news journalism sites, so much so that it would be improper to delete this page. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Keep. Such events are significant historical events, not in isolation but in combination. Keep it in combination with other such gatherings like the Area 51 gathering, as a single combined article. (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only. Although there are comparisons made between the "Area 51 Raid" and the "Josh Fight" in terms of actual event participation, The "Josh Fight" has no real direct involvement to be included into the "Area 51 Raid" article.DJ Baguio (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - passing the general notability guideline is not enough when the subject is not encyclopedic. Lots of news events are covered by large news outlets, like the dog example cited by the nominator. Such short bursts of coverage do not establish notability, unlike sustained coverage, which would (WP:SUSTAINED). WP:EVENTCRIT specifically addresses this: "Routine kinds of news events (including [...] viral phenomena) – whether or not [...] widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am not saying that just because I did not win. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Joshua Isaac: Thank you for injecting some much needed humour into what has been an otherwise tiring AFD, this comment made me laugh. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per reasons listed by others. Because of substantial coverage by several WP:RSs, it clearly meets WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. As per Andymii, if the very similar event Storm Area 51 gets an article for similar reasons, the Josh fight should too. Megalodon90 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC) — Megalodon90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - This has been covered by multiple international sources, and is very much able to be used as an article. If Area 51's events were worthy of being kept as an article, I see no reason why WP:EVENT doesn't cover the Josh fight. Just because it's recent doesn't make it any less unencyclopedic. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:EVENT does cover this event when it says that routine news events like "viral phenomena [...] whether or not [...] widely reported [..] are usually not notable". --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per aforementioned Imperator Storm (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Same reasons given by others. Events that come from viral memes can gain significant coverage (Area 51 storming), and shouldn't be discounted just because they're not groundbreaking or "historically valuable". Alimorel (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I think the fact that it was a fundraiser and food drive, not just a meme, contributes to the event's notability. Alimorel (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; the wide reporting indicates a high level of interest, and Wikipedia ought to provide a well-sourced summary of the event. Fishal (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reporting is a flash in the pan. It has no long term importance at all.--v/r - TP 01:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fairly sweeping and unsupportable assertion. This strikes me as something that will remain notable at least as an important moment in internet culture. But that's also just a prediction; time will have to tell on this one. Fishal (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I've seen the Josh Fight mentioned in almost every news source I read. It happened. People will imitate it. Journalists will write about it again and this page will be needed to contextualize copycat events. And merely calling it "unencyclopedic" is a weak, vague argument. Cheeftun (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1, this will undoubtedly happen again, and the event's official subreddit community has even discussed the possibility of another event next year with a different name in use. This will continue on. And even if not done by the original person, other copycats will continue this thing on for a long time, aslong as it can be milked for. That's why we should keep this article.--JoshFight (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @JoshFight: this is the 4th argument you've made that is listed as arguments to avoid, this one is WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cheeftun: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Do you have a reliable source that also predicts that journalists will write about it again, and that it will be imitated? If so I think it's a pretty good argument for keeping it. Otherwise it's mere WP:SPECULATION. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to reiterate from my another reply that there are some pictures in circulation on Facebook that indicate that some people are making groupchats to try to imitate the Josh Fight, but with different names this time. But, as I say it again, I can't really tell if it will be seriously executed or not.DJ Baguio (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This AfD has been linked from Reddit[4][5], and the article from Reddit[6] and Facebook. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeesh, will probably not be helpful to the discussion. In any case, I suppose it's an opportunity to educate some potential editors on how Wikipedia works. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing admin should note that most of the keep !voters are from Reddit and have fewer than 50 edits.--v/r - TP 01:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • TParis, I think *most* is a bit strong. This isn't a vote, as we know, but any closing admin should take a look at the actual arguments made and not discount legitimate keep comments because of outside canvassing by others. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't speak for the rest of the Keep voters, but because I've been boycotting Reddit for over ten years, you've motivated me to reply: I searched for this article after reading about the event in the New York Daily News. If you have a strong case to make for deleting this article, you should write that here instead of flailing the word "encyclopedic" or ascribing guilt by association. Cheeftun (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheeftun: your argument is based on WP:ITSINTHENEWS. I suggest you take a look at the whole page (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) in general, since what you said above ("People will imitate it. Journalists will write about it again and this page will be needed to contextualize copycat events") is WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the "Delete" arguments that say "that event will not be notable" (like TParis wanted to implify: "The reporting is a flash in the pan. It has no long term importance at all.") are also WP:CRYSTAL by then. DJ Baguio (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! That's why I think this AfD is clusterfucked. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "People will imitate it" part of Cheeftun's argument is now less WP:CRYSTAL since some posts in Facebook (in which I'm very active) indicate that some people are apparently planning to imitate the Josh Fight event with different names. I can't tell, however, if these plans will come into fruition in any way.DJ Baguio (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing significant about this event, despite sporadic coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --IWI (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's odd, it's peculiar, but it's factual, and it is notable. It is covered by ESPN, USA Today, Insider, and Fox News. Four WP:RS that are independent, and all covers in depth instead of just passing mentions. Passes WP:GNG easily. SunDawn (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of non-notable events that pass GNG. This is a news story with no lasting significance, and this is an encyclopedia. --IWI (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:GNG is only an assumption of notability. It's not a guaranteed pass. With events, you have the consider the long term significance. Do any of these sources talk about it's long term significance? I havent seen it.--v/r - TP 01:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but WP:RAPID also defines that article nomination deletion should be delayed for a few days. This article is nominated for deletion just few hours after it happened. Whether it is long lasting or not it hasn't been determined, and even if you want to wait to see whether it is WP:LASTING the move should be to draftify, not delete. SunDawn (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is an event that will be remembered for years to come as an internet joke that actually took place. It was widely covered by news sites globally. This very much is something that should stay. Its honestly appalling that this page would even be considered for deletion. Jmchugh131 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't claim that with SUCH certainty, but we definitely can't assume this will just fade out of memory in a few weeks. YuvalNehemia (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This event has been covered around the world by the news and is definitely a noteworthy event to keep as many heard of it and its a internet phenomenon not to mention it perfectly follows with WP:EVENT. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not much to say that hasn't already been said. Sure, it's an internet meme, but this article has facts and it is notable. Sure, it's fair to assume that in a few months not many people will be talking about the cultural significance of the Josh fight, because it's a fairly fleeting moment, but it had fairly wide impact and wide coverage by diverse sources as per WP:EVENT. --LivelyRatification (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I considered nominating this for deletion, but was torn because of wide ranging sources that pass GNG. Per WP:EVENT, it does seem to meet the criteria of depth of coverage and diversity of sources, however, it fails to meet geographic scope and lasting effects. Duration of coverage is still TBD. Natg 19 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC) (an editor named Josh)[reply]

• Delete The subject does not hold lasting significance, and it is premature to assume otherwise. Citations offered to defend the significance of the event are largely fluff pieces by North American publishers. Claims that this event has international significance are overblown, with few examples offered. At least one of the supposed examples of international commentary was an article sourced back to CNN, who were already cited. It should also be noted that some communities, such as Imgur, are actively interested in this story. Users from those communities may be under the false impression that the event generally matters outside of those pockets, and may be inclined to interfere with the deletion process for reasons not in the interest of Wikipedia or its policy and quality standards. Melonbob (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the other Delete arguments above... in short, it's a non-notable event. ~EdGl talk 06:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it passes the bar previously established. I personally compare this with Storm Area 51, and while later coverage may dispute these numbers, both events seemed to have had a similar attendance (~1500 vs several hundred to few thousand people). Plus the fight was a charity event, which means it has a lasting effect.
  The Josh fight could very well disappear from memory in the not-too-distant future, but it's without a doubt too early to tell. In a few weeks/months time we can discuss this again, after the dust had settled down. YuvalNehemia (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to add that after rereading WP:EVENT the fact that this was a charity event, unlike Storm Area 51, is even more fitting to the guidelines. YuvalNehemia (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it's sad to think how many events are not known because someone decided not to bother recording them: consider how many things were dismissed as unimportant at the time, but have only now been recognised as significant, and we're mourning the lack of relevant information. All those people saying "delete for now and we'll think about it later", how many of them would even bother to remember? Phil | Talk 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh if only those 31st century humans knew about the meeting of the Joshes. How ever will they survived. If only Wikipedia had a policy to protect such important anthropological information. Buuuuut...it doesn't.--v/r - TP 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination is based on WP:NOTNEWS but that discourages routine news about sports and celebrities and we are covering the Oscars regardless. The event in question is more unusual and seems to be reasonably notable and so it passes WP:GNG. It maybe that there's some scope to consolidate this with others meetings of people with the same name but I'm not sure what more we have. Anyway, the applicable policies are WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE and these clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article needs polish, but it is an example of a WP:EVENT, and many other memes and joke events (such as the Storm Area 51 meme) have their own pages.

• Keep, This is not just an internet joke its also about the strength off people even during covid times also we have articles on the area 51 raidoffwhiteeditor (talk) — offwhiteeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep per the points raised by Vaticidalprophet, MainPeanut, Cheeftun, and Phil Boswell. The original argument wherein a dog gets rescued from ice is just WP:DOGBITESMAN. So the dog got rescued. Are we supposed to make articles for every single rescue that have equally "miraculous" circumstances? Unlike an uncommon yet still frequent event like "dog rescued after four days", there's not a lot of (and possibly even near zero) instances where multiple people gathered from the continental United States—most of which bearing the name "Josh"—in order to participate in an event sparked from a "meme" as part of internet culture. The circumstances behind the event - mainly the method of how it was initially planned and its (surprisingly positive) outcomes - also warrant its uniqueness, and will likely serve as a basis for future events of similar nature. Chlod (say hi!) 10:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the future events happen, and secondary sources link them to this event, then we'll cover it then.--v/r - TP 12:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable" per WP:LASTING. Rather than delete at this stage, it's rather worth keeping at this stage to identify the lasting effect. Even if there were no lasting effect, this is not your run-of-the-mill event - much like I said in most of my point above. This just feels like a knee-jerk AfD to another viral internet meme that sparked an event: something that definitely has happened before (with nearly the exact same NOTNEWS, RECENTISM excuse). I guess modern internet culture is just this repulsive to some Wikipedians. Chlod (say hi!) 13:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's a few days old. Kind of early to call it internet culture, don'tcha think? Some Wikipedians are just quick to accept any trash that gets thought up and throw away Wikipedia's purpose so they can be part of the "in crowd".--v/r - TP 17:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • TParis, c'mon, don't make it personal. This is about the article, not other Wikipedians. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ganesha811: Chlod made it personal with this remark: "I guess modern internet culture is just this repulsive to some Wikipedians." If you want to patronize someone by acting like a Wiki-parent, start there.--v/r - TP 00:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          Sorry if you were affected by that. I was referring to the participants of the previous AfD nomination, which was very reminiscent of this AfD. If you received that as a personal remark, then that's not what I had intended. Chlod (say hi!) 00:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      The meme has been going around for way longer than "a few days old". Maybe some reading on the article would give you some insight as to how it became known on the internet. I'm not even going to bother with the generalized assumptions. Chlod (say hi!) 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      At the time I supported deletion, every single secondary source was 2-3 days old. Has that changed? If not, my comment stands.--v/r - TP 00:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      And how many of those sources described events that happened from a year ago which started this? Obviously not even mainstream media determined that the event was notable last year — because no one expected anything to happen. Surprise, something did, and it gained mainstream attention. So now we're supposed to call every event leading up to this as "new" because the sources are new? Chlod (say hi!) 00:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      At the time I am writing this we have secondary source from BBC that are just 17 hours old, Global News from Canada, New York Times that also have similar publish date. Mainstream medias from Singapore, Indonesia, Germany, and Japan also cover the event, nearly all made on the 25th, the same day you supported deletion. SunDawn (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      The way you phrase your comment sounds like you intended to refute my point. But I don't think you understand what my point is because you've actually strengthened it. No long term notability is established. It's a flash in a pain and it'll be forgotten in 2 weeks.--v/r - TP 16:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's forgotten in two weeks, we can delete it then. We're not wasting space. ((u|Bowler the Carmine)) (they/them | talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All stated facts are correct, the event did take place, not a fake article, do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16b8:2649:3b00:b541:388d:aeaf:fa47 (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC) — 2001:16b8:2649:3b00:b541:388d:aeaf:fa47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While the facts may be correct (they are), the event may be real (it is), and the article may be real (it is), that doesn't make it automatically notable. I was born (for real) but that doesn't mean that I deserve an article. Please expand upon your reasoning. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as per the aforementioned arguments highlighting its notability and merits of being maintained as a page (very succinctly summarised by people here such as Andrew, SunDawn, and many others), I see no reason to delete what is a perfectly valid wikipedia article and passes the threshold for being preserved. Greenleader(2) (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sure it's a odd but true story but it was something weird that happened. As for "flash in the pan" there are plenty of articles on here that not only are of long forgotten things that basically no one remembers except for the nerdiest of historians. In addition I've noticed it DOES follow rules set forth by the admins. Sure we can trim it but to delete it is a travesty and would have to bring up the question of THOUSANDS of other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All the usernames have been taken by now (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Most keep arguments border WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that we have an article on the Storming of Area 51 is simply not an argument. From what I can see it meets WP:GEOLAND as there are sources from the UK, Canada and India pointed out by MainPeanut. There is one problem: we don’t know if this has lasting effects since the event happened recently, just 2 days ago. Any speculation of it having or not having lasting effects (such as what Cheeftun and Jmchugh131 did) is pure WP:CRYSTAL. WP:NEVENT says ”It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect”. I’d recommend closing as no consensus and re-nominating a few months later to see if it indeed has lasting effects to be considered a notable event. --~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 12:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly this is the best option, as WP:RAPID also stated that breaking news should not immediately be sent into AfDs. SunDawn (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per MainPeanut, among others. Why has this been nominated so soon after creation? Where's the good faith? We should revisit this discussion in several months time, when its' lasting notability can be more easily ascertained. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An alternative could be to draftify as a ((Promising draft)) as some feel this event won't have enduring notability. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This wasn't just "some silly internet thing", it was an event that raised considerable amounts of money and food for charity. And even if it was just "some silly internet thing", why is that a reason for deletion? Does Wikipedia pride itself on being Olympic-level killjoys? If the Area 51 raid can have an article for recklessly destroying a portion of the desert, then this article and its subject's charitable contributions certainly deserve an article. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again... Borderline WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of that page directly says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid". You are going to have to find another argument, or at least elaborate, because simply linking that page is not an argument. Jade Phoenix Pence (talk)

What you said is to some extent correct, but it is only valid when some stuff exists for a reason, which are mostly more minor things or in cases where there is no specific notability guideline for the topic (for this article the relevant notability guideline is WP:NEVENT). Also the reason this article was put up for deletion is not simply because it's "some silly internet thing" (even though some users have said that) but rather because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't know (yet) if this will have a lasting effect or not. Thank you for caring enough to read and respond (unlike many others). ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Many others have stated events like Area 51 have been documented on Wikipedia, and I personally think this article is being nominated for deletion due to its very recent nature. Look at the Area 51 event, little people talk about it now, but it was still significant. The same could be said for the Josh fight if given enough time to expand and be properly documented. DavidCostell44 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having fun with repeatedly linking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @DavidCostell44: Having little lasting significance is actually a reason to delete the Area 51 article, not a reason to keep this one.--v/r - TP 14:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It just funny, also its a very recent event, of course there won´t be a lot of sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisahumanboi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prime example of WP:LULZ. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 15:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure the incident being either funny or recent is good enough reasoning to keep the article. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Isn't wikepedia about documenting history? If so why is there a bias towards events that have happened, stopping them from being retold in the future? There is countless stupid things like this that have been recorded in history, yet we're ignoring today's history, and by deleting today's records, those in the future will have forgotten about this era. — 99.234.172.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dear IP editor, see Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for the answer of your question. And also your arguments are WP:LOSE and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 15:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait 2 weeks or so then reevaluate: Coverage at top-level media outlets is continuing into Monday [7]. This has potential to remain notable, so waiting to evaluate the lasting effects or extented coverage (if any) until coverage dies down seems like a better option than preemptively deleting, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can't predict that nothing else will happen here. Its.Trei (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are various reliable sources that have covered this event, and it's notable enough to remain up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetronic (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait: The heart of the issue is whether the fight has lasting notability. Given that most of the delete arguments (and some of the keep arguments) are WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, I believe we should wait and see if people are still talking about it later. Exactly how long we should wait, I'll leave for more experienced editors to determine. ((u|Bowler the Carmine)) (they/them | talk | contribs) 16:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In a difficult year like this the little things that keep us going, Josh fight was not a mere event but the true will of humanity that still hides in fear but that wants everything to return to normal. Josh figh must be remembered for bringing people together in such difficult times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.90.55.78 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia and your feelings toward the event are irrelevant in the decision on whether to keep this article. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Both keep and delete have used arguments that are discouraged by WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. We do not know if this event will be forgotten in two weeks, we do not know if it will be remembered in a decade. As several other Wikipedians have suggested here before me, the best course of action would probably be leaving this discussion for now as per no consensus, and have it resurface in a few months time. YuvalNehemia (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.34.234 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC (UTC) — 201.163.34.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep: It is pretty epic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.235.89 (talk) 18:29, April 26, 2021 (UTC) — 76.119.235.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• See WP:LIKE and WP:ITSFUNNY Fixing26 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this is some incredibly Reddit stuff. Sheila1988 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It may be just "an Internet thing" but it's still an event that moved hundreds of people, it seems nearly a thousand. It has its historical meaning. Alerinaldi (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC) — Alerinaldi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment The longer this discussion continues the more clusterfucked it becomes. Many arguments from both sides are arguments to avoid. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Styyx, I tend to agree. Is it appropriate to request an admin close at this point, or would it be best to wait and let the process play out as usual? It's not a typical speedy or snowball close situation, so I'm unsure. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ATA is an essay, so don't expect others to follow it religiously like policy - especially the SPAs. It just means that whoever's closing needs a steady hand and a good (figurative) scalpel to cut through the cruft and pull out the actual arguments for keeping/deleting. This isn't a case for speedy or SNOW, so we'll just have to wait out the duration of the AfD as per usual. Chlod (say hi!) 19:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there some kind of banner for WP:ATA? If there isn't, there should be. Although I think that at this point it won't help much. ((u|Bowler the Carmine)) (they/them | talk | contribs) 20:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It’s reliably sourced and has received enough widespread coverage to indicate notability. Not to mention it’s a unique enough event, unlike the dogs being rescued thing. Dogs get rescued all the time. Events of this magnitude don’t. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is about a fundraiser too, I feel like the weirdness and the cause is enough to keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by All the usernames have been taken by now (talk • contribs) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's literally an old meme. I've seen that horribly pixelated jpeg that started it all years ago. Nowhere near relevant enough to be here. Whoever votes to keep this needs to "lurk moar" or whatever kids these days are calling it. PraiseVivec (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It’s not an old meme the event literally happened a few days ago. Not to mention, a meme being “old” doesn’t have anything to do with its notability. I’d hardly call something covered by The New York Times and the Associated Press not relevant. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just seems like a local public interest story. KidAd • SPEAK 22:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative delete A wp:BEFORE search shows mostly coverage by fringe sources (ie tabloids/pop culture outlets with poor reputations for factual accuracy) and/or unreliable self-published sources such as reddit or Medium (blog). Reliable outlets have mentioned it, but only in the context of their fringe interest segments, which generally does not meet the sustained coverage requirement for notability. Whilst it's possible that sustained reliable coverage may come, at this time, the article does not appear to meet that bar. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 23:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree that the article is an example of what Wikipedia is not, but even according to Wikipedia's own 5th pillar, "Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."
• And just because you don't believe that an article is newsworthy, doesn't mean that it's actually "not news." It was notable enough to trend worldwide on Twitter, which is where I discovered this wholesome story about a man named Josh who held a pool noodle battle in a small town in Nebraska to crown the owner of the name Josh and raise money for a children's hospital. USA Today thought it was news. 2600:1700:5258:1050:3513:5921:CE01:8267 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— 2600:1700:5258:1050:3513:5921:CE01:8267 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Like what many others have said, the Josh fight has received widespread attention from Internet users, and from sources that can be deemed as verifiable. Its not much different from the Area 51 raid I'd say. Internet-organized events of these magnitudes are rare, and they're notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. I understand that older Wikipedians may find them irrelevant, but I do seriously consider them to have a place on Wikipedia because they aren't just memes (which nowadays they hardly last a day in terms of relevancy), the event actually occurred in real life. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A lot of people seem to be saying that this article should be deleted due to the fact that the event is easily forgettable, but remember that a lot of people don't seem to be talking about events like Storm Area 51 nowadays, but they still have articles on wiki. Wizzito (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DJ Baguio (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. User:CAMERAwMUSTACHE puts it well – "It’s reliably sourced and has received enough widespread coverage to indicate notability." Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Storm Area 51 event had NatSec significance, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, the two events are not comparable. Sevgonlernassau (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree with deleting this article for the reasons listed above. The Josh fight had global news coverage and will be remembered for years to come as another internet meme, especially in comparison to other actions such as the Area 51 Raid. Arkadelaide (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Another argument with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.DJ Baguio (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep don't delete this article , i know that it all started as a meme but it turned into motivational movement that raised money and food for children those in need 102.128.12.2 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— 102.128.12.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Readership This is currently one of the top read articles on Wikipedia with over 300,000 readers in just two days. It is therefore not surprising that such a high-traffic article should have lots of !votes. And consider the alternative. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Philadelphia has just been relisted because in a week of listing, nobody at all could be bothered to register their opinion. Our consensus process requires participation and the more we get, the better. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Davidson, given the number of views on the page, I think this discussion has been about as productive as we could have hoped for. A lot of readers will have learned something about AfD and a lot of good faith contributions have been made, even if they haven't all been fluent in policy. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with deleting this article for the reasons listed above. It's keep spreading as a cultural phenomenon already. From what I've seen it was translated at least to 4 different languages far away from US. 12:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— Evitaperron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Hi there, can you provide a source for your claim of this article having in excess of 300k views? JoshFight (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoshFight: There is a tool called "pageviews" which allows access to the pageview statistics for any given Wikipedia page. A link to the statistics specifically for "Josh fight" can be found at here, which shows 318,780 views in the past two days. Chlod (say hi!) 12:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has already been translated into different languages.

It has been shown to be notable enough as it has spawned articles from NPR, Fox News, The New York Times, New York Daily News, the Associated Press, Arizona Central, The Indian Express, Indy100, The Arizona Republic, Metro (newspaper), Lincoln Journal-Star, The Courier

and several more reputable news organizations and publishers. The notability of this event is reasonably big as well.

It has received lots of pageviews: over 300,000 in the mere days since its creation. Also, many of the people against this page's existence claim that it is new and not yet noteworthy. Just because something is new does not at all make it not noteworthy.

Finally, claiming that this article should be taken down for irrelevance is disprovable, as another internet meme, Storm Area 51, They Can't Catch All of Us has its own page: even though this event had exponentially more participants than the scarcely-attended Area 51 gatherings and nearby festivals.--JoshFight (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)— JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • Again, an argument with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.DJ Baguio (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New record: that's WP:OTHERLANGS, WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at once. Keep going. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 10:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Styyx, let's not WP:BITE the newbies, they're contributing in good faith, even if they are not as familiar with policy as experienced editors. I know you're also commenting in good faith, but it's not a spectator sport. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On another note, if they're newbies, please stop using the wiki-ABCs. You're forcing more Wikipedia jargon in their face that will make it harder for them to understand how to make good AfD arguments. Explain with clarity, not with the expectation that they'll read 15 policy pages on the topic. Chlod (say hi!) 12:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoshFight: responding again per your and others' "request". "The article has already been translated into different languages.": each Wikipedia project has its own way of defining notability, as guidelines differ from language to language. Those interwiki links (as we call it), cannot be used as a reliable source. "It has been shown to be notable enough as it has spawned articles from NPR, Fox News, The New York Times, New York Daily News, the Associated Press, Arizona Central, The Indian Express, Indy100, The Arizona Republic, Metro (newspaper), Lincoln Journal-Star, The Courier and several more reputable news organizations and publishers.": as the nominator said, there can be bursts of reliable sources for each breaking news, and we do not create articles for those, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. "It has received lots of pageviews: over 300,000 in the mere days since its creation.": because a page is of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is actually notable. "Finally, claiming that this article should be taken down for irrelevance is disprovable, as another internet meme, Storm Area 51, They Can't Catch All of Us has its own page": citing another page is not convincing, as there is almost nothing stopping people from creating other articles. It's only valid when some stuff exists for a reason, which are more minor things. this will undoubtedly happen again, and the event's official subreddit community has even discussed the possibility of another event next year with a different name in use. This will continue on.: what you are saying here is a pure speculation of the future, we cannot know if it is really going to happen or not. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 10:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @JoshFight: Using the fact other languages have the page isn't, Styyx explains above, an argument to use. Even on those Wikipedias, the article has been put up for contestion (Ukrainian Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia considering deletion, and the French Wikipedia raising several concerns about the article). Fixing26 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to request the other editors to please stop hounding the newcomers. If they make flimsy arguments featured in an essay, it's not your job to point it out. If you do want to at least give them some insight on their arugments, use the talk page instead of this AfD. If you see an SPA, just tag them as SPA and move on. This behavior of repeatedly calling out faulty arguments by newcomer editors (even if they came from another website) based on an essay is borderlining on incivility, and does not reflect how we're supposed to be treating new editors, SPA or not. Chlod (say hi!) 12:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Chlod. And I have to mention that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay and there is no obligation for anyone to agree with it. Just because someone use OSE does not mean their comments are invalid. The admins would judge as they close this discussion, and as far as I could see those who respond to other new commenters by using jargons are not admins. (and they probably would never become one if they keep doing that) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Chlod (talk · contribs). Not because of our votes is the same, but I feel that the atmosphere on this particular AfD is pretty bitter. As a newbie myself, I feel there are lots of WP:BITE going on and lots of borderline WP:UNCIVIL actions. I do not want to point to a specific editor, but continuing to post links to Wikipedia guidelines while not explaining anything is pretty much biting the newcomers. Yes, lots of newbies didn't know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but that is exactly why we should explain to them instead of just dismissing them quickly. And from a newbie standpoint, if Area 51 could stand, why couldn't this one, which really happened, and with humanitarian cause, can't be allowed to stand? It's the "duty" of more experienced editor to educate them, instead of just dismissing them with a wave.SunDawn (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree I agree. Also, a lot of people are citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think they fail to read the first sentences on WP:SSE (which is in the same essay): "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." Wizzito (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition, I feel that some people here should stop WP:Biting new editors (being unfair towards new editors), and instead lay out the rules and guidelines, instead of linking to a lot of jargon that newbies may not understand. Wizzito (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with this. As pointed out by Jeromi Mikhael and SunDawn, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an official policy, but simply advice. One line of the essay in particular that stands out is "Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate." It has gotten to the point where a lot of the keep votes done by newcomers are being rebutted by simply pointing to the essay with no further explanation, which the essay itself discourages. I also feel like this is overshadowing some of the legitimate arguments made by other users as well. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. I am one of the editors who kept slamming OSE essays on newbie editors, and I apologize for that. This AfD is getting unreasonably repetitive with the same reasons all over again, and it's getting annoying.. Well, this is actually my first AfD page that I'm very much worked out, so I scarcely stated my arguments here unless when deemed necessary due to lack of experience, so I just tried to patrol this AfD to keep it in control. But it also seemed like some of my actions actually added more chaos instead of controlling it. Again, I apologize for that. Guess I'll just tag SPAs for now. ^_^ DJ Baguio (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DJ Baguio, understandable, thank you for acting in good faith. Frankly, I wish this AfD could be closed sooner rather than later, no matter what the consensus is, because I agree that it has rapidly grown repetitive. But apparently there's no good precedent for doing that, so we'll just have to wait until the week has run its course. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I kept hearing references to this and couldn't find out about it. This definetly should be hear to help people know what it is because people will still be talking about this for a long time and the information should be recorded.PythosIsAwesome (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is history! We cannot let it be removed and forgotten by most as time continues. Too much has already been lost or made to be lost because people do not like being reminded of the truth in our history. Little Josh deserves better!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.108.123 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC) — 70.77.108.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Just because you like the winner of the event, it does not make the event notable. Fixing26 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have seen this page go from ~1,000 page views to over 300,000 in a matter of days. The main argument for deletion seems to be that this article may not meet the GNG, but there are several citations from various news sources (local, national, even international), and the significant increase in page views demonstrates this article is relevant and likely to remain at least somewhat relevant in the foreseeable future. Nordberg21205 (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nordberg21205: Nobody is saying it does not meet GNG. Meeting GNG does not guarantee inclusion when considering other factors, in this case WP:NOTNEWS. This might be newsworthy, but it is not encyclopedia-worthy. The views are because it is viral this week, but with no lasting significance. --IWI (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ImprovedWikiImprovement: The debate over meeting GNG comes from determining the article's lasting significance, as that in itself is a part of the notability guideline for events. While it's certain that the views will go down as the internet moves on with its next viral trends, it is likely that this event won't be forgotten either. There are numerous comparisons between this and Storm Area 51, most of which fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but even though there's hardly any news coverage of Storm Area 51 anymore, the page still receives ~750-800 views per week (excluding the new views sparked by this event) and 34 edits per week (from 21 March to 21 April). I acknowledge that page viewership and editing statistics don't solidify lasting significance, but perhaps they'll provide an insight into the event's questionable significance in the future?

• • GNG does supersede NOTNEWS for inclusion, actually. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ‘‘‘Keep‘‘‘ Why did I search it up in the first place? It’s a notable event that actually took place, if this should be deleted, then storm Area 51 should be deleted as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.52.155 (talk)
• Comment I've noticed that some people are saying that "it'll be forgotten". This is simply not true. The event will be remembered annually; it's a part of internet culture now. PeterPrettyCool (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @PeterPrettyCool: Hi there, we can't know if people will remember it a year from now. The people saying that it'll be forgotten and you saying it won't are against WP:CRYSTAL which, in summary, means you can't suggest you do know what reliable sources will be saying a year from now or that an event will be still revelant. Fixing26 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• post-vote comment I think it is fair to say that the extensive keep vs delete debate over here on Wikipedia with people feeling passionate for and against this article's existence is an example of the Streisand effect. This is attracting more attention to the fight and possibly even justifying its Wikipedia notability more as a result. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to reliable sources. I also point at the participation of this AfD, which at very minimum hints at this event being notable. I'm seeing too many people yell at new editors by citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL. Not everyone is used to the sharpness of these shortcuts. Please actually explain why you think their !vote is invalid, and pipe-link to the essay if you wish. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So true! Completely agreed... — JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 8:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC) (UTC).
  • I really aim to keep the article since it's interesting, funny, and wonderful to my personal part. But then, I was one of the editors who used to call out these votes with these two essays. Even so, I don't think that their comment is entirely or partly invalid, I just did that since these arguments have gotten pretty repetitive. I agree though that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument can be valid or not depending on the scenario, but WP:CRYSTAL still indicates that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it can't predict with mere speculation on what will happen in the future.DJ Baguio (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not a routine event and it has, at this point, received significant coverage in reliable sources (also funny as hell). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait as said by other fellow editors on here, to see if this will be covered more by news outlets in the coming days, or even weeks, or if it was just a one-off thing. LucasA04 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be frank, people don't talk about the area 51 raid anymore, but that page still exists. Do people still have to talk about judges of the 1800s for them to keep their pages? What you're sayin goes against the idea of an encyclopedia of human knowledge, so that it can be preserved for the future... JoshFight (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC) — JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Lasting effect is needed for events only and not for people (see WP:LASTING). "Article X also exists" is not an argument. The fact that the lasting effect of the Area 51 raid is questionable is a reason to delete that article, not keep this one. Please make a policy-based argument. Thanks. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A highly notable event covered by several worldwide sources, some of which are linked earlier in this thread. I fail to see the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of the article and how it does not comply with WP:GNG, etc. --KingErikII (Talk page) 09:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable for what? How do you know? Are you from the future? Do the Browns ever win the Superbowl? WP:GNG is the presumption of notability. If it determined notability always, we wouldn't need all these other notability guidelines. Just because an event receive recent coverage doesn't mean it has long term notability. Just wait until the next flash-in-the-plan and everyone will forget this.--v/r - TP 12:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, WP:CRYSTAL. You don't know for sure that it won't be notable. We can give it more time and reassess it, and in the meantime we can keep it up, no big deal. ((u|Bowler the Carmine)) (they/them | talk) 13:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's... quite a profound misunderstanding of what GNG is. GNG is what notability is - other notability guidelines (with the exception of NPROF) - are presumptions that they will meet GNG. "Presumed" is also explained at GNG - and this clearly does not fall under that exception. Moreover, the SNGs have absolutely nothing to do with that. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can see news coverage all the way up to yesterday afternoon,^[1] so I don't buy the argument that "all the coverage was at the time, there has been nothing since". I'm with the group that says reassess this in 6 months to see if it has any staying power. As an article, I don't think it diminishes Wikipedia, and although I understand the arguments in favour of deletion, I think this falls the other side of the line. Rhanbury (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm all for reviewing the case in 6 months, but in the meanwhile it still fails notability guidelines. The coverage lasted about a week and was quickly fading, and was only covered by major sources (those at national levels similar to the BBC) for a day or so.

• Just in case this page is deleted, go here for an archived copy: User:JoshFight/Josh fight. JoshFight (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC) (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC) — JoshFight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  @JoshFight: That really isn't appropriate. If a page gets deleted, then it gets deleted. If it needs to be worked on some more, then we can move it to draftspace for further improvements. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Chupenme la pija, aguante la pelea de Joshs, si el asedio alárea 51 tiene artículo, ¿por qué no este? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:b888:8210:f16e:e675:95aa:7a99 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep discussion in English, and please be respectful. LucasA04 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article currently has 22 sources which is plenty and should suffice. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst the article may have sources, it still doesn't apply to WP:GNG as a result of WP:RECENTISM Fixing26 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not suffice notability guidelines, and most media coverage seems to just been fairly recent, not meeting the with coverage already fading, mostly being kept at for around a week. As per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't know if there will still be major coverage in the future, and if there is we can revisit if there is a need for an article about the Josh fight. For now, it just seems to be a slowly fading internet meme. Fixing26 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixing26, while I agree that the burst of coverage right after the event is, understandably, receding into the past, there is already continuing coverage that goes in-depth and discusses this event in the context of others past and future. For instance, this Op-Ed from today in a local Delaware paper, hundreds of miles from any local connection.^[1] No event is covered as frequently as when it actually happens, but I don't think there's any real reason to believe this won't still be mentioned and discussed months in the future. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: That's true, however the event coverage from major sources seemed to be one or two brief stories, and the rest from minor publications. These were mostly published around the date of the Josh fight, and coverage was nothing more than covering the basics of it being an internet meme. Fixing26 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it's quite clear simply from the fact that there are so many reports of this event that is is indeed notable. If Storm Area 51 is notable enough, then so is this event. The article is Start Quality, no doubt no doubt no doubt. But I feel like this is a unique event and fundraiser, and the quality of the article will improve whenever some Josh uploads some photos to Commons and the text is given more thought. I fear that most potential writing users are spending most of their time here, and so the current quality isn't indicative of how the article will look in the near future. RobotGoggles (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RobotGoggles: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in regards to Storm Area 51. Reports, especially from major national sources, have mostly stopped and lasted about a week, failing WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. Fixing26 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:RAPID which are outlined at WP:EVENT where nomination for deletion should be held for few days, while this AFD is immediately requested few hours after the event. WP:PERSISTENCE arguments also fall into WP:CRYSTAL, as editors are unsure about the notability of the event in the future, that is why I advocate keeping the article for now, and assess its notability in the future. SunDawn (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The case with most internet memes is that they stay relevant for a short amount of time, whilst it was wrong for the nominator to immediately open the inquiry into deletion. In regards to WP:PERSISTENCE, the news headlines are already fading, and whilst this can't be used to predict the future, it's shows that the event has already mostly fallen out of relevance other than those who insist to keep believing the meme. Fixing26 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The story made worldwide news and generated money for charity. This actually happened, and the [[[Storm Area 51]]] did not. I believe it is significant enough to have a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XaotikHP (talk • contribs) 13:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XaotikHP, we know that it happened, but that's not enough (see WP:EXIST). The worldwide news generated is as a result of what we call recentism. Please expand upon your reasoning and make a policy-based argument. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even though it is another dumb fad popularized by the use of internet memes, it still should receive some sort of coverage, but not coverage in a way that grossly exaggerates what actually happened for comedic effect (no use of battle infoboxes, and no treating of the event as an actual armed conflict). Kosmosnaut87. 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete An examination of WP:EVENTCRITERIA shows that the Josh Fight does not meet the notability guidelines. It is not an event with a lasting impact or one with a wide geographical scope. It does not have deep coverage (only brief news reports), and hasn't had time to establish lasting significance. While there is a diverse number of sources, this is an expectation for notable events, not something that establishes notability itself. To contrast with Storm Area 51, Josh Fight has less coverage and less impact (no responses from local or national governments, no lasting impacts beyond internet memes). This isn't to say that the notability criteria can never be met for Josh Fight, but it doesn't seem to be established right now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Qwaiiplayer, while I think there are a lot of reasonable points in your comment, I want to take issue with one part of it - that "it does not have deep coverage (only brief news reports)." I don't think that is accurate. The WSJ, NYTimes, Lincoln Star-Journal, and a couple of other sources are long, in-depth, and solely focused on this event - they all show signs of original reporting (interviewing relevant people, for instance), and are not just "churnalism" that lifts from other reporters. While not all of the article's sources are as high quality as those, overall, the coverage is in-depth. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being "silly" or "a fad" is not a valid rationale for deletion if the subject nonetheless has significant coverage in neutral, third-party sources, per the authoritative essay WP:THESUBJECTBEINGSILLYORAFADISNOTAVALIDRATIONALEFORDELETIONIFTHESUBJECTNONETHELESSHASSIGNIFICANTCOVERAGEINNEUTRALTHIRDPARTYSOURCES. jp×g 21:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]