Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Ryder Cup photograph
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
— User:MickMacNee, 13:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ATA||WP:VAGUEWAVE (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)