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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Delete !votes not a significant proportion of the total. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen[edit]

Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

YouTube views, a Bieber tweet, and filler stories by news sites do not make a stub article's topic notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn, taking to PROM with singer's article. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All news sites publish filler sometimes. We really need to cut down on YouTube and internet meme coverage per WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources cover it, it's legitimate coverage of cultural phenomena. There are plenty of well-sourced articles on Youtube stars and internet memes on Wikipedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion if the sourcing is there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources, import it to Wikinews and rewrite it completely a) to be more news-y and b) for CC-BY-2.5 compliance. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If" isn't the question, I've shown that it clearly does and is a well-sourced cultural phenomenon that meets general notability guideline for coverage. Wikinews is a terrible Wikimedia project anyway. As for lasting coverage, this is well into its second week of coverage and international reliable sources have talked about its popularity in the Philippines, [6] Wales,[7] Hong Kong [8] and India [9]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. All of the sources are simply gee-whiz news stories over a week or two.(It seems that events have overtaken us and this has charted in Japan, and maybe elsewhere. 16:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not the way Wikipedia, in particular WP:NOTNEWS, works. We don't keep articles while their topics are in the news and then delete them afterwards, but rather wait until they have been shown to have more than fleeting coverage before writing an article. A more policy-compliant way to deal with this would be to delete it for now and then recreate it if it later transpires that it has lasting notability beyond the current news cycle. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that it is notable and it has even topped the charts, my stance now is to just simply keep it per WP:GNG and WP:NSONG as below. XFusionSGX (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's routine coverage. For a few days in late September there were news reports that this was a "viral sensation", but such news reports over any other few days, or other news outlets over the same few days, will routinely describe something else as a "viral sensation". The fact that many journalists are too lazy to look beyond what's trending on Twitter or wherever doesn't mean that we should emulate them. This is precisely the kind of situation that WP:NOTNEWS is designed for. And, no, I wouldn't dream about asking for the deletion of the article on Daimaou Kosaka, but his notability is not inherited by everything he creates. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage of the song and the notability of its creator, it seems that merging the content to the creator's page is what should occur instead of deletion, if the delete !votes have it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Maybe younger editors have a different attention span, but as far as I'm concerned a few weeks is not "enduring". Would we consider a topic to have enduring notability if it got a couple of weeks of coverage in, say, 1966 rather than 2016? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't pass it for Bubbling Under, but Billboard Japan Hot 100 is notable. If it hits Oricon, then it'll be notable for sure. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (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.