The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was snow keep. A non-admin closure. Banana Republic (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has too many issues with jargon and comes across as a something more appropriate for cataloging on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Know Your Meme. This is not to discount its notability, but rather at present (or maybe ever) it's unfit for Wikipedia. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The term has faced recent heavy attention and scrutiny as of late. This article is similar to the OK Boomer article in terms of content and subject matter. I wouldn't say it's automatically non-notable because of WP:TONE; all it takes is a little rewriting and revising. Love of Corey (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just read this article from Nina Burleigh about the meme and it's role in politics and society. https://gen.medium.com/how-the-karen-meme-benefits-the-right-4cff760d6e90 Sgerbic (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it is in general having notability. I am open to further improvement of this article.Universehk (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'd like to direct your attention to the sources currently used in the article: Vox, Slate, Time, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian and The New York Times, all from articles speaking directly about the term — its use, its meaning, and the sociopolitical themes it evokes. You have nominated an obviously notable article, and I would like to speak to your manager. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The term has received a lot of recent attention and appears to be notable. An article explaining the origins of the terms and its meaning is encyclopedic and would be appropriate given the widespread usage of the term. If article requires improvement then we should seek to improve the article rather than delete. Tracland (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject is easily notable, and I don't see any reason to apply WP:TNT. JavaHurricane 08:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable term, plenty of solid sources. (Even though it hasn't got into the Oxford English Dictionary yet). PamD 11:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Remember Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Term is certainly WP-notable, with several full WP:SIGCOV pieces on the term from WP:RS/P sources including: CNN, Business Insider, The Guardian, New York Times. I would snow close this, no need to prolong. Britishfinance (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very helpful. Not embarrassed to admit I didn't know what "Karen" meant when reading about the "Central Park Karen." It is well sourced. In my humble opinion, all well sourced knowledge/information is appropriate for Wikipedia, as testified to by all the articles on pop culture and other notable and significant (but, at their core, frivolous and superficial) topics contained herein, e.g. Pokemon Go (Level 40 trainer here), curling, Harvard Lampoon, etc. Also, if this article is to be deleted, what then is the point of the category Slang and parenthetical disambiguation "(slang)"? Finally, I am offended that Chad isn't being similarly considered (with a nod to Toughpigs' entry, v.s.). Paulshikleejr (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable topic. If it needs work that's a discussion not for afd Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I used the description to find out what the term means and its various contexts. The article served that purpose well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.139.94.151 (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep. I think it's a really stupid term myself, but it has arguably become notable by our standards beyond being a passing meme. Even the nominator admits 'not to discount its notability' - so why nominate it for deletion? Robofish (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article on the word is actually on the front page of CNN right now. The article aside, the word meets notability requirements on the grounds that it has received coverage from reliable sources for several years. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2020 (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.