Deletion of 2010 Ryder Cup photograph

Comment: all of the "ample coverage" says essentially the same thing.  So how does it justify an ''entire article'' on the topic?  Per my !vote above, it seems like  weight to me.  I would like to see some discussion on this aspect of the topic; why does this meme warrant an entire article instead of a bullet point paragraph in the List of Internet phenomena article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Do you mean ? I've quoted the relevant text in my initial comment. It's clear you don't ''like'' the article but it's also clear that consensus and the notability guidelines lean strongly the other direction
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: per . The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if he were called for a commercial about cigars or the like. His image sells
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: massive amounts of references for this article.  Notability never expires, so if Cigar guy is notable today, just because time passes and he is not talked about later, doesn't mean he should not be on wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Worth noting, for people who are asserting  in favour of keeping this article, that  also states 'Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.' I think this is a perfect example of where a topic garners a lot of news attention, including from respectable sources, because it is funny, but still fails to achieve notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Even if this photo is notable right now, which is seriously debatable given a non-lawyerish and more commonsense view of what being notable actually means, the GNG is a presumption, and in this case, the coverage does not outweigh the obvious caveat to that - that this is an article whose sole claim to lasting notability and significance is temporary news coverage. And the coverage of this meme is not exceptional or significant for the general topic of internet memes that make the news, and per NOT#INFO aswell as NOT#NEWS, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to document every meme that simply makes the mainstream news, no matter how international that is. As somebody above said, there is no critical or in depth coverage here, it is all just basic news reporting, and in many of these, the whole follow up reporting to find out who the person is is perfectly normal and expected, for news reporting. But Wikipedia articles use different values than news outlets for determining what is and isn't worthy of note. There is also the BLP factor, given the actual bloke is a very reluctant celebrity it seems, and would not relish the unwarranted coverage an article on Wikipedia would bring for all time, on the basis of brief news exposure. If further coverage down the line proves this is not just one of many such run of the mill flash in the pan internet meme news stories that occur several times a year, and this image/meme is actually proven by RS to have been remembered as significant and historically relevant, then the article can be recreated. But looking at it this soon, this is obviously not going to be present yet. But if nothing is ever said about this again for the rest of time, then the world is losing nothing by deleting what is already here, which is not much. And after all, deleting this article does not mean information about this dissapears, there is List of internet phenomena for stuff like this (but this is categorically not an endorsement of a merge outcome, it can be deleted and redirects created. Several of the keep votes are pretty basic |poor or invalid votes, and people who are trying to invoke NTEMP have not exactly proven this is notable beyond a , which can be applied to any old trivia on Google News on any given day. While space is not an issue, Wikipedia's funding drives most certainly will never cover such an approach to encyclopoedic worth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA||WP:VAGUEWAVE)

Comment: Would anyone asserting  please provide a rationale for why this passes  and is even notable in the first place
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:NOT)