Deletion of Don't talk to me or my son ever again

Comment: Satisfies  per above with ample coverage. No evidence of a  like some users are claiming - please remember to |assume good faith
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:COI||WP:AGF)

Comment: Sighs" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Lizard|not this crap again. I won't bother making a keep or deletion vote here, but I can rest assure to you, Torqueing, that I created the article but did NOT form the meme, and no valid argument has been given here to delete the article. Kris159 says it best here: I made the article because the meme ACTUALLY HAS SOURCES FROM INDEPENDENT PUBLICATIONS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY COVER THE MEME, and that should always be it. I also have no regrets in creating the Tea Lizard article for this same reason alone. The rationale for deleting an article about a meme because "There are hundreds of memes created each year" is pretty much the same thing as deleting an article about a musical album because hundreds of albums are released every year; there's no proper consideration of the notability or the amount of coverage here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don%27t_talk_to_me_or_my_son_ever_again&oldid=735523048 This other argument the nominator made on the article's talk page renders to nothing more than , and only shows he wants the article to be deleted only because of how he THINKS the article is important to have on the encyclopedia without taking into consideration the amount of coverage in reliable sources, as previously mentioned. I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia, as far as coverage of Internet topics go, now consists mostly of users that base the notability of a subject on how only THEY THINK the subject is important, not how much reliable coverage a subject has actually received. Not a good sign for the future of the online encyclopedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC)