Talk:Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

Article edited by Greatedit1 to old out of date information

I do not understand why this article was rolled back. The image and the article were 100% accurate. Instead, it was rolled back to an old out of date version with no rational explination. Recommend ArbCom intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarkamW (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

POV article protected by the Facebook Group's members

If there was a wiki article for every Facebook group, this website would crash. Why is this one so special? It literally says dank meme stash, something not worthy of wikipedia's attention. It is irrelivant and pointless. The only reason this page still exists is for ad revenue for the group's moderators. This page serves no form or function other than to advertise a small Facebook Group. Recommend deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.143.162 (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(Untitled)

in regard to the proposed deletion, the reason given is nonsense, the group has been the subject of 4 different articles that i know of including the washington post. not notable? tell that to the internet. 24.160.133.55 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC) -

• Donald Trump's penis has also gotten a lot of press lately, but that doesn't justify it having its own article. if this is going to be mentioned, it should be as a section under the article about Bernie's campaign, IMHO.2605:6000:4885:9B00:9563:719:6E1A:4926 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In Regards to Proposed Deletion

Dear Wikipedia,

What process would one go through to prove the notability of this page? How do you normally decide what is and isn't notable? That seems to be a very subjective reason to delete this page, and if you are basing the notability of the page on how popular it is right now, or talked about, then this page is certainly worth keeping. If you're basing the notability on how useful this information would be to the public, then that is once again very subjective. I think this page should be kept, because in the multitude of Wikipedia pages, it can't hurt to have more info. BSDMS is growing, and will almost certainly have an impact on the upcoming election, or at least Democratic primary, and has evolved from a simple Facebook group to a community. In my opinion (and, most likely, the 300,000 others in the group), this community is worth noting.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE44:DF70:3CBB:C180:FF0D:1C95 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ask yourself, honestly: Is this encyclopedic? Or is this the kind of article that a middle schooler would write for FunnyJunk.com? If you can answer that question honestly, then you will arrive at the answer you're looking for. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 17:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I asked myself, honestly, and given the scale of influence that this has, I don't think it's something a "middle schooler would write for FunnyJunk.com". You've tried to make that point in the deletion debate as well. Perhaps, a single meme would fit your criteria, as something a youngin would put on funnyjunk... But not an entire page. However, the fact that it's a facebook page with 300,000+ members doesn't warrant it's notability on Wikipedia. The fact that it's actually having a legitimate influence on Bernie's campaign, and the media, DOES warrant the keeping of this article.

Proposed merge with Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is temporary and should be mentioned as part of the presidential campaign. Winterysteppe (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. Plus, most of it is random trivia. Stamboliyski (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Note that a very recent AfD discussion concluded on 3 March 2016 (UTC) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, where many users suggested that the article be kept (meaning it stays in place). Some users also supported merging, while others supported deletion. The sentiments of users at that discussion should not be discounted simply because this new discussion was initiated right after the AfD ended. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Also, regarding the notion of "This article is temporary", please read WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I meant for a discussion with a different goal. I believe the article is likely just an offshoot of the campaign that is largely independent of the campaign. Also, I just don't believe a facebook group is just notable it is mostly people making memes. I do not believe this type of stuff is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Perhaps just be done as a note as part of his campaign.

• Oppose - It is related to the campaign, but definitely not a part of the official campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averageguy007 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge. Someone's Facebook group (about the best presidential candidate in the 2016 election, but still) is not notable. The reception and short description can be merged, but most of the stuff is not related to the actual group. epicgenius (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Procedural oppose, this needs an actual AFD to gauge its notability. Though I still endorse the idea of a merge. epicgenius (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC) (Edit: the two are separate campaign, so let's not merge them unless we have an AFD. epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC))

• Oppose - it's related to the campaign, sure, but it certainly has a separate existence. --Jtle515 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Its existence is based solely on the fact that some people decided to make a Facebook group on the campaign. Without the campaign, the Facebook group would have zero notability. As it is, the Facebook group is marginally notable, if only because it is in the news. epicgenius (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The group is not officially represented by the Sanders campaign, therefore, should not be represented on his main Wikiepdia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamorakphat (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Not a part of or affiliated with Sanders' official campaign. Best kept separate to avoid the potential of creating the misconception that it is in some manner. However, it can continue to be mentioned at the campaign page, as it presently is. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not directly related to the Sanders campaign, especially not officially. The page focuses on Bernie and is affected by the campaign, but they aren't really under the same umbrella - and the page will likely still be functioning and "notable" after the campaign's over. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 23:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Can possibly be added in a "In popular culture" section or something of the like. I don't think it needed its own article in the first place, as it is simply a handful of memes that aren't particularly notable. It certainly did not require the amount of detail that is present in the page. I can't help but notice that a lot of other Sanders-related things (including this advertisement) have long, detailed pages when a simple reference in another page will suffice. SirLagsalott (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is not affiliated with Bernie Sander's campaign, so it should not be merged. Ethanlu121 (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - BSDMS is a separate entity from the campaign and it's clearly a notable subject, with enough content for its own article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add BSDMS to Category:Internet memes?

I thought it could fit nicely there. Zamorakphat (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Unbelievable

This is the single most worthless, non-notable article I have EVER seen on Wikipedia. It is a joke that this exists. All of you should be ashamed. Eightball (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your stance comes across as potentially politically motivated against the Sanders campaign. Why are you so concerned about this one out of 5,111,601 articles on English Wikipedia to such a strong degree? Wikipedians should certainly not be ashamed about contributing to an article about a notable topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

Did BSDMS get suspended on Facebook, or just a bunch of other pro-Bernie groups? I don't see how the suspension of other Facebook groups is particularly relevant to this article? Plantdrew (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I felt like most of the references were better suited for its own article: 2016 Bernie Sanders Facebook groups suspension.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK

I just removed more than a quarter of the references because they failed to even mention the subject of this article. Entire sections turned out to not be connected to the topic by the references. I didn't check all references, so it's entirely possible there are more of that kind. Even those sources that do mention Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash tend to be used for trivia that are entirely irrelevant to that group. For example, I'd love to see an explanation of how knowing the job of a person who founded a spin-off group will improve our readers' understanding of this group - based on reliable sources, please. Huon (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

this is

the dumbest.

page.

ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.128.12 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

every single person that contributed to this waste of space should feel ashamed of themselves.

it's a fucking MEME PAGE how does this deserve a wikipedia?

oh my god it has a Memes subsection kill me

Content Section

In regards to section "Content" subsection "Art", While The object of subsection "Art" is indeed relevant to the BSDMS, it is not related to the content of the BSDMS. Looking at the sources this was an event related to BSDMS, though not part of the "canon" content curated on the BSDMS. Suggest removing "Art" section and adding as a one-two sentence addition to "history" Rileybathauer (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Update History

Suggest updating history section, also in subsection "spin-offs", "recently" is quite out of date at this point. I would like to see this updated to accurately reflect its historical significance as well as explore where BSDMS has turned to in recent times, or end history with a "disbanded" section. Rileybathauer (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325072919/http://gawker.com/enjoy-these-fresh-ted-cruz-memes-from-the-ted-cruz-meme-1766913389 to http://gawker.com/enjoy-these-fresh-ted-cruz-memes-from-the-ted-cruz-meme-1766913389

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Useless page

Why does this need a page? --FPSTurkey (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Because there are enough (seemingly) reliable third-party sources talking about it. And since we don't have to worry about storage space, WP can cover subjects that would normally be omitted from print encyclopedias. That's why we have articles about all the Pokémon. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 22:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Member count

People keep changing the membership number and updating the "as of" date when the adjacent citation from The Daily Dot says 442,000 and said citation is from 25 August 2016.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 05:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Merge

I wonder whether we should merge this to to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016#Bernie Sanders campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with merging this (and many other stand-alone articles on particular social media moments in the 2016 election). Plantdrew (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

3RR reached: Narrative pusher added material without apparent citation.

This page has a pet narrative pusher who continues to vandalise it. Ellenor2000 (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucracy and technicalities do not an encyclopedia make, maybe your efforts are best spent elsewhere that doesn't involve misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarkamW (talk • contribs) 08:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Why?

This article pretends to be npov, but a click guides you to a photoshopped picture of Bernie Sanders smoking a joint with two large chunks of weed floating next to him. This is not a wikipedia worthy article, it belongs on 9gag or one of the meme sites. It's obvious that this page is jealously guarded by misguided facebook page mods, but we're better than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarkamW (talk • contribs) 04:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The article has survived numerous deletion discussions; the most recent was in January, where the result was "No consensus". The article is well-sourced and the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. If you feel it has NPOV violations, you can boldly fix them. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Why does wikipedia, saying it's a resource, have a link to a dying facebook page of outdated 'memes'? There's dozens of Donald Trump pages like this with more subs / viewers that don't have pages here, why is a failed presidental candidate here afforded special treatment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.139.101 (talk)

Make one then, if they're mentioned prominently in news articles. This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of Sanders, so make sure your contributions don't stem from your apparent vocal opinions either. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Because this is wikipedia, not defend my most recent favorite politicianpeida. Stay out of this conversation, it does not involve you, please.

Free advertisement?

Every time this article gets recommended for deletion, wikipedia editors come out of the woodwork to save it, no matter how long it has been since the last edit. Recommend either removing direct references to the (for profit) facebook group, or deleting entirely, since this page looks to be used for advertisement and endorsement (direct links to the facebook group) where it takes one click to join, rather than education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.93 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because an article has not been edited in a long time does not mean it should be deleted, you need better reasons than the ones you are providing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 campaign and meme stash

This is an article about a socially important slice of internet history, but with Bernie Sanders running for president again, in 2020, it could use some updated text. It turns out not to have been a short-lived phenomenon after all. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I updated the "Content" section to the present tense, but did not add much more. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a dead page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.230 (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Viewership

There is no verified viewership number since the facebook page got deleted. Any numbers are pure heresay.

As long as RS say it so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Note I have now moved your deletion request to the article page, where it should be.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone still here?

Page is full of dead links, and the original facebook page seems to be long since gone. There does not seem to be a way to organically get to this page unless you knew it existed half a decade ago. I'd recommend deletion unless this page is designed to be a memorial for the facebook page. which would be a little strange, but none of my business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1DB:C800:6D01:C5E4:E041:107C (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Political Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2023 and 20 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgiraffe, Luke Clements, Otakacs1508, Leahgburke24 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tmorgan106, BjornRobinson, Phytalogreen, Jillian0000.

— Assignment last updated by Deparkozee (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)