Deletion of Citation needed (2nd nomination)

Comment: The sources aren't all terrible. I'm not seeing the problem with the Know Your Meme site.  It is not a site where people can self-publish. It's true that users can ''submit'' a meme for consideration, but then again readers of a newspaper can submit a story. It doesn't mean it is going to get published. https://knowyourmeme.com/about According to the site, they have a professional editorial staff who review submitted material and research "the online presence of the meme for confirmation or invalidation."  Joshua Glenn's "Brainiac" column in the ''Boston Globe'' could perhaps be allowed as an RS under  as a recognised expert since he has previously published on internet matters. Variety (magazine)|''Variety'' doesn't strike me as a source we should reject as non-RS (although in its case, it provides only one tiny factoid).  Finally, of course Wikipedia ''articles'' can't be used as reliable sources, but page histories can certainly reliably identify the creator of the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: Many keep !votes are unconvincing that this deserves more than a , but some have provided plentiful coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)