Deletion of Advice Polack

Comment: per Mango: repeated recreation seems likely. |Right now, there's zero notability, and it's not a meme that passes GNG. And it has clear BLP problems. Cf. Little Fatty, which has substantial coverage, and whose subject even sought some measure of media attention
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: I accept http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAdvice_Polack&diff=547650869&oldid=547647526 Volunteer Marek's assessment above of the 8 sources cited in the article.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advice_Polack&diff=547660468&oldid=547650351 No one has refuted that assessment. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Salt if repeatedly recreated, but I did not find any evidence of that. The meme ruined the police officer's life, but I don't think listing his name in the Wikipedia articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advice_Polack&diff=prev&oldid=527514130 an egregious BLP violation since it was sourced, although it was correct to remove the name per BLP. Delete per  - lack of sufficient source material. If the topic ever gets past , it still would need to get past  before there can be an article on the topic. The sourced BLP material itself does not meet , so the BLP information in the Advice Polack article should not be disbursed into other Wikipedia articles and the AfD closer should make a comment towards this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:BLP||WP:BLP)

Comment: as per Giano, John Vandenberg, Jetro, Nanobear. It clearly passes . Some people are  very sensitive when it comes to memes, like people wanting to delete Ecce Homo (Elías García Martínez). ‎   Given the additional information presented by John Vandenberg on the article talk page, we should look at this. List of interviews directly relating to the Advice Polack/Pan Andrzej meme: http://pokazywarka.pl/h0x7v5/NIE (August 2011), http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-z-kraju,3/zrobili-z-niego-najwiekszego-prostaka-pyta-dlaczego-ja,269944.html TVN24 (August 2012), http://natemat.pl/26741,janusz-lawrynowicz-vel-pan-andrzej-internet-go-zniszczyl-mial-stan-przedzawalowy-i-chodzil-do-psychiatry NaTemat.pl (August 2012). List of interviews relating to other memes: http://www.ipla.tv/2013-01-10-hit-internetu/vod-5644104#page_container Wydarzenia (January 2013) (relating to another internet meme in Poland), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gmP7R-M3CI Telewizja Polska (January 2013) (a news report claiming that kwejk.pl and similar sites can have an effect on people's lives). Given that he's given 1 interview in 2011, 2 interviews in 2012 and 2 interviews in 2013, indicates that he is following the advice of the lawyer in the TVN24 report. That advice being, to speak often and draw attention to his case. Our responsibility is to portray his case in the article with respect, and this has been done with the version which Giano reverted tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advice_Polack&diff=547660468&oldid=547650351, which treats the issues in much the same way as Star Wars Kid (mentioned by Jetro above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: for BLP, and specifically .  Unfortunately that policy contradicts itself--the first sentence says that not every detail should be included even when well-sourced and the second sentence says the article should be "pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" which literally read doesn't allow deleting anything that couldn't be deleted anyway.  I would, however, go with the last sentences: "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."  Reporting on a meme meant to disparage a person amounts to prolonging the victimization
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:AVOIDVICTIM)

Comment: This is not a particularly popular image macro or meme, and it never was. Proof if this is the fact that all the notability is tied to the issue with the person whose photograph was used to create it. So it fails  as what it's supposed to be, and it's  essentially, as an issue related to the person. Oh, and  as well. No matter how one looks at this, it does not merit inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)