Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbenheimer

Barbenheimer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and Internet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—as I have expressed on the talk page, this is not notable because it's a transient internet phenomenon that fails WP:20YT and which will be irrelevant come July 22. Culture journalists report on memes and internet fads all the time, but that doesn't make them all individually notable. I agree that this is best expressed in a sentence or two on the main articles of the two films, not in an independent article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Quick Snow Close to get rid of the huge tag on top of the page. This article is well sourced (The Guardian, New York Times, Evening Standard etc.), becoming better sourced by the day, is a bit of fun (haven't laughed so hard on Wikipedia as when preparing the opening image and its encyclopedic caption), and notable per topic, sources, and as a cultural phenomena. Let's close this down pretty quick, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you take any article of decent quality and cut-and-paste one of its sections, it would also make a well-sourced article. But the presence of sources doesn't necessarily demonstrate that a subject should have a standalone article; should we make articles for Cast of Oppenheimer (film), Marketing for Barbie (film), Production of Oppenheimer (film), etc. just because they would be well-sourced? No one is suggesting that this information isn't notable/noteworthy for inclusion on Wikipedia, but WP:N requires more than just being "notable" for there to be a standalone article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is textbook false equivalence, both ways. More sources ≠ important article ≠ less sources. However, the argument for more sources being good reason is founded in the fact that this article has more depth than could be contained in a footnote. I’m inclined to agree with that perspective. There is a lot of detail involved in this phenomenon that is worth reading about. Maybe it will die down, or maybe it will head recognition for phenomenon in the future. But either way, it is a cultural event of substance, and not one to rush to delete before it’s even happened. 204.111.113.49 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since this nomination many more quality sources have been added to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Randy Kryn. Article is sourced, and it's not the first article about a meme that would be irrelevant in (near?) future, so I don't even understand why it was proposed for deletion. Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

+1 — Culture IS history. If truly no one talks about it after the day of, then sure, they can delete the 10kb article if they must. But if it’s ever referenced in the future, even if in small settings, then we are doing a disservice to history to delete it. This event and phenomenon has meant something to millions—that’s important. 204.111.113.49 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

keep - Such a cultural fad deserves to be disseminated for decades to come. The public response and critique of Oppenheimer and Barbie together blends into many already existing theories, yet does not correctly merge as a singular, or if onto the pages of the respective films would likely cause confusion.

Researchers will require this information and it is without a doubt that the care and attention seen within this article will go missing if not preserved. 81.155.91.197 (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article is well sourced and is important to understanding the current anticipation building up to the release of each film, the cultural attitudes towards each film, the current state of viral marketing in film production, and is also very well researched. Barbenheimer is a popular search term as of July 2023, and the article fills in the reader about it with great context incredibly well. Keep! --BakedintheHole (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well-sourced. Lots of decent coverage. Could use some tidying up or reformatting. Count3D (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feature, but at a minimum a RobertsRobert snow close seems fair. Once the films come out, many patterns of similarity and/or opposite plot flows will be noticed and reported on, inevitable when people are looking for them (an underreported force of nature). This is actually epic poetry in meme form. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Feature"? The second sentence sounds like a whole lot of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Also, any reason you've !voted twice? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Throast. 'Feature' is a commentary not an !vote, as is the following sentence. My main point, as mentioned in the !vote higher on the page, is that this should be snowed in order to get the giant unsightly tag off the top of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Fails WP:20Y. NM 07:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The essay section linked promotes WP:CRYSTAL. How about a 50-year test, to pick a number out of a hat. Not a policy or guideline based merge reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced with significant coverage from different reputable media, and has sufficient content to be its own article. Skyshifter ^talk 13:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ya fun-haters --Jtle515 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG. Arguments for merger seem nonsensical to me, why would we repeat a huge amount of the same information on two articles when this one is already good?★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very notable across North America and the UK. There are several reputable secondary sources on the subject. Aside from being an internet meme, this is a very well-constructed article that meets all the requirements Conyo14 (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the Morbius meme, the Barbenheimer meme is showing a real positive impact on both films. Variety reported that at least 20,000 people are going to see BOTH films according to AMC. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge, it's "doomcrossing" again, Doom and animal crossing.
if this stays, i hope that link turns blue as well. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not comparing articles here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. The article is well sourced and will probably be notable for the next few weeks, though I worry about the article's shelf life and WP:10YT. Time shall tell, for now, my vote is keep. 〜 Askarion ✉ 18:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, maybe merge into Counterprogramming (film distribution) which is a much shorter article than this. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think counterprogramming is a more formal process than this, which feels more of a ground-up kind of occurance (meme culture vs. deliberate marketing), so this merge might be misleading. 137.132.26.98 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has proven to be active in the collective consciousness for over a year, as well as being reported by secondary sources consistently throughout that time. It is financially significant to both films and will likely stay relevant/be brought up for years to come, meeting WP:10YT. There is also merit in not unnecessarily loading both film pages with information included here. Jzahck (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Weak keep: Article is decently sourced but I have no problem if this was merged into the marketing or release section of each film -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound (she/her) 20:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I say keep it notable we have many sources Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's received more coverage than most of the similar counterprogramming examples. Snowman304|talk 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample RSs to demonstrate WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. This is an example of recentism and is ultimately an internet meme that has no long-term notability. We don't have an article about, say, Doom Eternal X Animal Crossing memes, which were a very similar phenomenon, because those stopped being relevant after the games released. The same can be said here, this meme will have no relevancy or notability after the movies release, much less in a few years or decades from now. See WP:20Y. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:20Y is an essay and falls directly into opposition to WP:CRYSTAL. Per crystal, we don't know if the growing meme will be notable in five or 20 years, but it is notable now with enough acceptable sources to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree with claims of recentism and while the sources may be varied and strong, the phenonemon can be summarised into sections on either page or on a section on counterprogramming. --ayush (reach out) 03:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Recentism or not is impossible to say as of yet. If term continues to be used, keep as separate page; if not, merge later. Λυδ α cιτγ 05:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Counterprogramming (film distribution): The phenomenon itself has had a significant impact on ticket sales & marketing for both films. However, it's likely that the trend will not have any long-term notability or relevance. I also think the information currently on the "Barbenheimer" page would be at home on the pages for their respective films and on the Counterprogramming page. BroIsAfraid (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) BroIsAfraid[reply]
Keep. well sourced and clearly growing in notability day by day, i see no reason why one could object to this article other than just “not liking it.” Kdog5454 (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable with significant coverage from RS. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't delete it it's a great case study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.232.104 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much of the substantial debate here boils down to concerns about how to balance concerns about recentism with WP:CRYSTAL; some editors have also accepted that the content is notable but have suggested merging it into the pages about the films themselves. If the content is notable then it needs to be kept to its own page: Internet memes about another film prior to the film even been seen are undue information that would clog up the page. An article about the actual film Oppenheimer does not need to dwell extensively on the fact that many people found it amusing that it was released on the same day as Barbie. As for how to balance recentism against CRYSTAL, I would argue we should turn to WP:NEVENT for guidance, as it also concerns matters of potentially ephemeral note that capture the imagination of journalists. WP:NEVENT requires that a topic have WP:LASTING significance or wide geographical scope—this has both. It has been discussed by RS across national boundaries as a defining cultural moment in summer 2023 with potentially wider interest for film theorists and cultural historians. The rivalry between these films and the online reaction to it has become a significant matter in its own right and it merits a (sensible) Wikipedia article. —Kilopylae (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Barbenheimer article details significant cultural phenomena and well-documented marketing strategy, touching on various aspects of cinema, moviegoing, and internet subculture. As another user has stated, this is a case study worth noting. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.104.126 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has enough coverage and the topic will be more relevant upon release of both of the films. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems be an overwhelming consensus that the article is well sourced and important beyond a simple internet fad. While it may eventually be a merge in the long term, deletion makes no sense now. We should wait and see whether a merge makes sense in 6 months-1 year from now. Glenn984 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced article which has relevance to the current state of cinema and internet culture. Vader13289 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]