Ohio (Internet humour): Couldn't find much secondary sources online and the article only cites 6 sources, two of which (Dexerto and Sportskeeda) have been deemed as unreliable per WP:VG/RS .  It also cited We Got This Covered which I've removed in accordance with WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED .  indy100 could be reliable due to being owned by The Independent, but I'm not so sure about Distractify.  Jurta talk 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jurta : Comment I feel as if this is one of those weird situations where the subject itself is certainly notable (billions of views), but there is not enough coverage in reliable sources.  — Panamitsu (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet .  Jurta talk 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment i don't think it should be deleted, per se, but it is not yet notable.  unless and until it can be featured in more secondary sources, this article should stay off of wikipedia and on other sites more suited to the coverage of such topics.  Nucg5040 ( talk ) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The Mary Sue is considered to be generally reliable.  Dexerto was incorrectly tagged as unreliable.  It is only listed as an unreliable source regarding video games, and a recent, fairly extensive RfC did not establish general unreliability (because it was archived before it was closed).  Not sure about Yahoo, as this is a syndicated In The Know piece, not a Yahoo News article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador ( talk • contribs ) 12:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added an argument to delete the article.  This article looks terrible to me, and there is only few cited sources.  2001:448A:11A2:14E2:5D16:892A:8ECB:CDEF ( talk ) 13:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm with Panamitsu on this; I think the meme is well-known but the lack of serious coverage makes it unsuitable for a Wikipedia article.  Moonreach ( talk ) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is not know your meme.  Yahoo and the like will always run throw-away pieces on every internet trend. .  that does not mean that we have to have an article on it.  This does not raise to the level of something like Florida Man or other 'notable' memes.  A sudden blip of interest (which is self-feeding - one article will always spawn a nearly identical one from a different outlet) does not mean there is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (web) in my view ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm not sure what is this page?  This is an unclear page at all.  There is also no indication of sources and it has only few sources on it.  2001:448A:11A6:1B76:D15B:60DD:5E62:AA13 ( talk ) 13:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete