Deletion of Josh fight

Comment: No lasting notability can be determined at this time.  While it basically meets , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I considered nominating this for deletion, but was torn because of wide ranging sources that pass GNG. Per , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: nothing significant about this event, despite sporadic coverage. |Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: A highly notable event covered by several worldwide sources, some of which are linked earlier in this thread. I fail to see the  aspect of the article and how it does not comply with , etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:GNG)

Comment: An examination of  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRITERIA)

Comment: The Storm Area 51 event had NatSec significance, so  aside, the two events are not comparable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: The nomination is based on  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 .  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 ,  and  and these clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:NOPAGE||WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: 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  and . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: It meets most of the guidelines in . The fight was a charity event, which means it has a lasting effect. This isn't just a silly meme, it raised more than $13,300 USD, and over 200 pounds of food for a children's hospital. Even if this was "just a silly meme", why are silly things such a bad thing? By erasing the history of today, you're robbing the people of the future of knowledge about this era
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RECENTISM||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: It's odd, it's peculiar, but it's factual, and it is notable. It is covered by https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/31326502/inaugural-josh-fight-little-josh-crowned-best-josh ESPN, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/25/josh-fight-winner-nebraska-4-year-old-joshua-vinson-jr/7375103002/ USA Today, https://www.insider.com/josh-fight-draws-hundreds-to-lincoln-nebraska-battle-over-name-2021-4 Insider, and https://www.foxnews.com/us/nebraska-josh-fight-horde-of-dudes-named-josh-fight-for-right-to-name Fox News. Four  that are independent, and all covers in depth instead of just passing mentions. Passes  easily
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: as per reasons listed by others. Because of substantial coverage by several s, it clearly meets  and . As per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NEVENT||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 ().  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED||WP:EVENTCRIT)