Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Techno House 2022

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 delete. The history can be restored via WP:REFUND if a serious attempt is made to create an article about social media in the current war, but consensus is that this meme on its own isn't notable. Sandstein 09:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Techno House 2022[edit]

[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)

Delete as non-notable. This fails wp:recentism Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article, the meme has been widely reported, in RS, and has gone on to create other memes. It appears to have become a general point of derision of the Russian army, in particular as an indicator of how inept/poorly trained they are (or ill-disciplined, assuming the soldier, Andrei Paktishev is just gaining entry to the shop so he can loot it). According to the RS, Ukrainians have used it as a meme to mock Russia. I will also note there has been an attempt at G3Speedy delete which failed, and it has remained, with many editors improving it since. I've tried to add as much RS as possible to improve it. Discussion of the meme has also discussed the Wikipedia page for it, so IMHO just a bit of interesting media commentary on Wikipedia and how our articles cover these events.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As creator of the article, I have changed my vote to delete. Its clear that in the end, this meme didn't have any enduring significance - its a short life meme. Fails under Wikipedia is not a newspaper.I have not voted for a redirect, as there isn't an appropriate place for it to be re-driected to - some editors have suggested the battle for Kherson, but IMHO its really not relevent to that page and wouldn't be a good fit. I would however say that the coverage of the wikipedia article was interesting and of note.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kherson offensive or at least 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where it could be covered in a section on popular culture. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Considering some of the comments here, I have changed my vote back to Keep. While I'm confident, as a meme alone, there is probably no enduring notability, and this fails under WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a newspaper - the article, and much of the commentary focusses on the Wikipedia article, including the title of the meme itself which is a direct reference to Wikipedia "Battle of XXXX Year" articles. As such, I think there is more to the article than appears at first hand. I don't really think its a great look for editors to removing commentary/media references to Wikipedia itself. In addition, I actually think there is value to keeping the reference, as a comment on Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Kherson or Delete. Per WP:N, there are two requirements for us to presume an article to be merited: (1) that it is notable under WP:GNG/WP:SNG; and (2) that the article subject is not excluded under the policy on what Wikipedia is not. This article clearly fails on both counts. With respect to the first criterion, viral phenomena are within the scope of WP:NEVENT. The relevant notability guideline states that Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. There is no reporting at this time that distinguishes this viral phenomenon from other viral phenomena and memes that get reported on all the time. Simply put, this absolutely fails WP:NEVENT. For a similar reason; this also fails the second criterion listed in WP:N—this fails WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As the policy states, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and routine news reporting... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. For a viral meme to merit an article, it would need to be one that is unusually likely to hold enduring significance. The reporting present in the article's sources, however, suggests that it is not unlike other memes-of-the-day; I see no reason that this merits a wholesale article at this time. I am indifferent between redirecting this to the article that describes the battle during which the incident occurred and deleting the article wholesale, but I strongly oppose a keep. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper IMHO does not apply here. Clearly the event generally, in the context of the War, is more important than a simple news event of a man breaking into an audio store - you couldn't justify an article on that. The Meme and event has wider implications, as noted - commentary on Russian Soldiers arguably conducting illegal activity in the Ukraine, and being ill-disciplined. Also, including as part of the reporting, the discussion of the sarcastic reporting of the event by the Wikipedia article. Certainly more importance to this than it being a standard news article on a break in. Broadly, in this case, I think there is value to keeping it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Funny video posted on twitter" is routine clickbait reporting. But, in any case, let's go through how the sources cover this, in the order of sources currently in the article:

The South China Morning Post piece does not mention the incident;
The Jerusalem Post piece does not mention the incident.
The Newsweek piece does not mention the incident.
The iNews piece does not mention the incident.
The piece in The Independent does not mention the incident.
The piece in The Guardian does not mention the incident.
The Perth News piece frames it as a funny video, but does not state that the incident or resulting meme was in any way symbolic or important.
The News Corp. Australia piece frames it as a funny video, but does not state that the incident or resulting meme was in any way symbolic or important.
The piece in The Canberra Times does not mention the incident.
The Herald Sun piece is the same exact piece as the News Corp Australia piece.
The HITC piece frames it as a funny video that inspired reactions, but does not state that the incident or resulting meme was in any way symbolic or important.
The Info (Slovakia) piece frames it as a viral video, but does not state that the incident or resulting meme was in any way symbolic or important.

In other words, the only reason we'd have for keeping it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH—we'd be supposing without references to reliable sources that the video and/or resulting meme is notably symbolic or important in some other way. There's no evidence of wider implications that I can find reliable sources writing about, so I really don't see a reason to keep. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per what Mhawk10 said. Noting: I previously tried a G3 speedy delete on the article, which was denied and I redirected the article twice to Battle of Kherson with both being reverted. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I'm pretty sure the reversions for you edits were for other unrelated but valid reasons. First off you thought it was a hoax, which it wasn't. Then you seemed to take issue with it being portrayed as an actual battle... when it was only using the term figuratively, the article is not implying that it was an actual battle. The article is simply using the meme name "Battle of Techno House 2022" coined by others. So there was good reason for the reversions for your redirections. Otherwise, I'll stop commenting on this article now - I'm getting close to WP:bludgeon, and I'll leave it to others to contribute.Thanks all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article might be also the case of WP:TOOSOON sadly. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mhawk10, no lasting notability. Those voting to redirect should bear in mind the article Battle of Kherson doesn't mention this at all and probably shouldn't as it is of little significance to the battle. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that I don't expect this will meet WP:SUSTAINED. one component of WP:N. It may, but, by definition, that can be determined only in retrospect. "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability." Largoplazo (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely based on Largoplazo's sound reasoning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some appropriate page. Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think there's a page this would be appropriate to merge to? Largoplazo (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recent, trivial viral moment. No indication of sustaining coverage. If reliable sources are talking about it in 5 years then it deserves an article, otherwise Wikipedia is what's immortalizing the moment, not reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Largo. Insufficient sustained coverage (=actual coverage, not pretend coverage) to warrant a standalone article, or, for that matter, a redirect. SN54129 17:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because this is fucking hilarious and also put in an infobox. Cganuelas (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is just a viral meme with no obvious notably, it fails WP:GNG. I mean it is nowhere near the notability of Doge or Pepe the Frog. Felicia (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While it is difficult to gauge the lasting impact of this meme, the current state of the article suggests that future coverage of this meme will be few and far in between (if at all), so WP:RECENTISM applies here. JaventheAldericky (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect to Wikipedia_in_culture as WP:NOTPAPER and a standalone page makes the more sense than a merge to the battle. There's two elements of notability here: the coverage of the original meme and the coverage of the parody Wikipedia page with the infobox. Is there Wikipedia article/list about WP articles mentioned in media sources and then were deleted (and the article's deletion was mentioned as well in the news)? I'd support a merge to that page, if one exists, but if Wikipedia itself is being reported on with regards to a given subject (and we're being parodied), deleting the subject article is not a good look. BBQboffin (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As creator of the article, please note I have changed my vote to delete. I can see that coverage of the meme at this point is not being WP:SUSTAINED, and has been noted WP:RECENTISM applies. The coverage of the Wikipedia article was interesting, however. I think Merge is not an option - the Battle for Kherson page (where this event occurred) is not appropriate, and there isn't presently any other page for it to go to. I do agree with BBQboffin, that Wikipedia editors deleting articles that parody/joke about Wikipedia is not the best look and something to be considered here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article discusses the Wikipedia article, and four articles include screenshots of the wiki article and the meme title itself "Battle of Techno House 2022" is a parody of Wikipedia article titles - the meme seems overall be a bit of a parody of Wikipedia articles. I have added a short note to the Wikipedia_in_culture page with RS from this article in support. I think this clears us from any accusations of removing content that could be seen as critical of Wikipedia, a concern raised by some editors (including myself) here. Thanks all.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move IMHO, this article clearly does not belong as an article on Wikipedia, yet it has some qualities. I propose the whole article is moved without redirects to eg. User:Deathlibrarian/Battle of Techno House 2022. That way the edit history is kept, while not showing up in the main article space. BFG (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea! It's always possible that we look at this 6 months from now and realize that it is in fact notable. If so, we can retain it. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's draftified, then especially because so many editors have shown interest in editing it, it ought to be moved to Draft space. Largoplazo (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely support such a move to draftspace; WP:PRESERVE is also a thing. JaventheAldericky (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Mhawk10.--Catlemur (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. I personally laughed my ass off reading about this but unfortunately the talk of it will die soon more than likely. Less notability, more WP:GNG failures. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 14:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Personally, keep it. It cites all its sources so there's not much wrong with the article in that regard. User:DimensionalFusion talk (contrubutions) 17:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe, more than as an article on its own, it could be merged with the article regarding the battle of Kherson, and insterted as a new section here as a curiosity. 94.38.150.134 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may yet become an enduringly notable event, because it is very funny... but time will tell... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article based on a meme that some lol'd at fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted above, I've changed my vote back to Keep. Initially I agreed, the article clearly fails justifiability as a meme based piece, as it's influence is not sustained, however the majority of the articles make reference to the Wikipedia article, and many of them show screenshots. The Wikipedia angle is of interest I think, and as a few editors have noted, I'm not sure its a great look for Wikipedia to be deleting articles about itself.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think a standalone page is superior to the section you created on the Wikipedia_in_culture page? Is it not possible to display the Infobox there for the proper context? I'm new here; trying to learn the ropes still. BBQboffin (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references on that page are just single lines, IMHO squashing this article down to a single line or two doesn't do it justice. Its certainly better than nothing, but seems a waste of this article to toss it and have it replaces just by a line or two somewhere. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new page regarding viral/popular media or the role of media/social media in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The sharing of videos and photos of the war is unprecedented in world history and should be documented. There are many other viral clips such as of the farmer towing Russian tanks, the civilian who told a soldier to put sunflower seeds in their pockets for when they die, and the audio clip from Battle of Snake Island. There is an article on Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and one on Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social media for COVID-19, so why not one on social media in the Russo-Ukrainian crisis? DiophantineEquation (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like an article about the role of social media during this invasion would make sense. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never seen this meme on Reddit. So not so much of a meme then. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen it in a few comments of the world news subreddit. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, just do a google search on "Battle of Techno House 2022 and Reddit" its been posted to Reddit more than 10 times....eg here and here here and here
Leaning Keep This may be a meme, but it's a notable meme in the current conflict. It's also notable for the fact media used it as a reference. It's got sources, some of them are even considered RS. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SUSTAINED until proven otherwise. I'm also unconvinced that the event received SIGCOV in reliable sources per Mhawk10. JBchrch talk 02:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that the article received a bunch of views, I have attempted to clean it up pending the outcome of this discussion. This should not be understood as me supporting its notability. JBchrch talk 03:00, 12 March 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.