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 one proposed merge ATD lacks consensus. Sandstein 22:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf Big Naturals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

User:Urve raised a concern that the subject is not notable at the DYK nom, and I rather agree. Of the sources present, only the first two (Autostraddle and The Mary Sue) provide significant coverage, and neither seem WP:REPUTABLE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Internet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Mary Sue is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. "Original reporting is reliable and original blogging may be appropriate for editorial/opinions, but reblogged content is not." I am uncertain of Autostraddle's reliability, but it seems to fall under PRIMARY since it's an interview with the creator. I'd say both are reputable enough as far as sources go, but only one really seems to count as SIGCOV here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999 the Mary Sue source in question, which includes snippets such as "Gandalf was gifted some massive bananaramadonglehaumers", "Ever since then, Gandalf has been out there shakin’ them thangs for the greater good, and we couldn’t be prouder of him. Not only is this supremely swaggy of him as leader of the wizard community, it’s also aesthetically cool as all hell., and "Godspeed, you beautiful, braless bitch. Godspeed.", seems to fall firmly on the side of "original blogging", which is only "appropriate for editorial/opinions", not notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorials and opinions are perfectly valid for notability, though? The author is also a member of the site's staff, and not a random blogger, so this wouldn't fall under Wikipedia:BLOG either. I doubt this article is notable either way, but I wouldn't discredit the Mary Sue source entirely. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect (neutral on target). I agree with Pokelego999 here. The source doesn't count towards notability given it's mostly commentary from the creator. I might grant that it could be mentioned as a meme somewhere, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. If a good redirect/merge target is found that can contain the info without falling into Wikipedia:UNDUE territory, I'd be willing to go with that, but for now the subject is just non-notable, even with the sources discussed above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if a decent target is found. As I expressed at DYK, I'm not seeing the requisite amount of substantial, secondary coverage to justify a standalone article. I am somewhat surprised that we don't have a standalone list of Tumblr memes / phenomena article (pinging Theleekycauldron and Generalissima since you might be interested in incorporating some of this article into such a list?); if this is deleted, it can be refunded to redirect there for incorporation and attribution. Urve (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Gandalf#Adaptations: and add some of the sources on the page (or https://www.next-stage.fr/2025/01/baldurs-gate-3-developpeur-fete-son-succes-mod-ose-la-raison-est-surprenante.html or https://www.themarysue.com/the-only-wizard-i-want-to-hear-about-right-now-is-gandalf-s-big-naturals/ or https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-in-gods-name-is-gandalf-big-naturals-the-surreal-photoshop-lotr-meme-explained or https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/meme-review/kym-review-top-10-lewd-memes-of-2022-that-will-get-you-bonked) -Mushy Yank. 09:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems extremely dubious that covering this meme at that article would be due. It might be a good idea to cover this at some article about The Lord of the Rings memes alongside e.g. They're Taking the Hobbits to Isengard and Figwit. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems extremely dubious that covering this meme at that article would be due.> And why is that? Not a whole section, a short sentence. + Supporting the good idea you mentioned! -Mushy Yank. 10:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Because An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. per WP:PROPORTION. Based on that criterion, the relative importance of this meme to the overarching topic of Gandalf is minuscule, and while I haven't conducted any kind of analysis of the coverage in the sources, I reckon that the relative weight placed upon this meme by the sources compared to e.g. Ian McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf is probably likewise pretty much a rounding error. That is to say that if we devote (say) twenty sentences to McKellen's portrayal and one sentence to the meme, we're probably over-emphasizing the meme in relative terms. TompaDompa (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    May I beg to differ? It seems the meme can be covered proportionally according to what it is and that is my point ("should not be given undue weight" does not equal "should not be mentioned at all", in general nor in the present case). Talk page exchanges and normal editing can make sure it is. And such strict proportionality will be quite difficult to decide (let alone, to control), anyway (e.g. x sentences for IMcK's portrayal, y (= how many x?) sentences for Tolkien's depiction, etc). [to clarify, editing/talk can help control/decide weight given to aspects of a subject but not with such a mathematical precision] But again, the other solution you suggest is also good. -Mushy Yank. 11:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I also agree that this seems a bit Wikipedia:UNDUE. If the meme was something huge to the extent of something like Bowsette or something, I could see an argument for including it, but given that this meme has maybe two sources at best that aren't trivial, and this is an article about one of the most iconic characters of all time, including this meme doesn't seem proportional to how the article covers its content, especially since McKellen's incarnation of Gandalf is a relatively small part of the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Know Your Meme is not a reliable source, so it wouldn't be very helpful here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Use all the other sources, then. (Staff articles on entertainment topics (not BLP nor contentious ones) have been found more or less acceptable as opinion pieces by certain users in one of the many threads dedicated to the site at the RSNb). -Mushy Yank. 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The site is still unreliable at Wikipedia:KNOWYOURMEME in all use cases, and the discussion itself you've linked seems to be overwhelmingly negative toward its use, even in terms of its staff articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, use all the other sources, then. -Mushy Yank. 16:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable and WP:UNDUE for a merge anywhere. BD2412 T 19:10, 30 January 2025 (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.