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 SPEEDY KEEP nomination was a WP:POINT, and as much as I have issues with this article, Wikipedia hasn't (yet) matured to the level to dispose of it, so WP:SNOW. For now, we'll just need to make sure WP:BLP is enforced in spirit and letter on all relevant entries. . -Doc^g 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet phenomena 2[edit]

List of Internet phenomena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested PROD, with rationale:

Lack of relevance (70.58.114.69 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 22 February 2007)

Procedural nomination only. Chris cheese whine 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to previous version for sourcing, or else delete. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Doc_glasgow for events leading to this point. The emasculated version has major holes in its coverage, and as such is useless. -- Jay Maynard 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started work on a repair to the damage that caused this nomnation. Before I invest hours days in it, I'd like someone to look and make sure I'm on the right track. Sample entries are at User:Jmaynard/Repairing_List_of_Internet_phenomena. -- Jay Maynard 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I no longer care. Hipocrite destroyed the article by wiping out essentially all of its content - after voting to delete the article. It's clear that my work isn't wanted, and neither is the work of the hundreds of other editors who have contributed to it. Delete or not; I'm powerless to do anything about it. -- Jay Maynard 22:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (Speedy) keep. Nomination makes no sense, is not based on policy. The subject of Internet memes as a whole has been covered by sources such as CNET. Individual memes in this article are being sourced as we speak (apparently this nom was caused by the ADDITION of sources). When we discussed this a few months ago, there was a clear consensus to keep. --- RockMFR 17:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go read the cited RfC: the nom was caused by wiping out major sections of the article and using admin powers to defend the action, thus leading to the belief that this article meets with admin displeasure. -- Jay Maynard 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suspect this nomination is intended to disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. Rather than source the material to make it compliant with WP:BLP, we're getting this.--Doc^g 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material's lack of compliance with WP:BLP is disputed, as a look at the RfC will show. -- Jay Maynard 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Thought the nomination is obviously a WP:POINT, somehow they have found an article that is nothing more than a category misnamed, with some additional, randomly selected entries. WP:LIST states that "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." This list is difficutl and contentious, and lacks such reliable sourcing. As such, it is a clear and obvious deletion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - the list itself states that "What defines an Internet phenomenon is purely subjective," the criteria proposed for inclusion is that anyone, anywhere has called it one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nominated before. Basically a list of things that are internet phenomina and notable. No policy based reason to delete that I see... - Denny 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see why this should be deleted, besides that I think this article can be very helpful (got some interesting information out of it myself) (Me-pawel 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Um. On the one hand the vast majority of this can, to put it bluntly, Fark off, but it is a way of keeping the more egregious cruft from being rereated and battled over. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• We typically don't delete things because they didn't get edited to satisfy one particular person's preferences. While I understand that Jmaynard may be somewhat frustrated, and I won't go so far as to allege WP:POINT I will say this nomination seems ill advised. Keep because much of the information could well be added back, IF it were properly sourced. ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I did suggest the nomination, I did not make it, as a checkuser will show: my system is on a static IP address, and the one int he nomination is not that address. -- Jay Maynard 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article needs to be looked over for WP:BLP and WP:V, and sources added for verifiable entries. It doesn't need to be deleted. Dave6 ^talk 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, per Lar. Internet phenomena are encyclopedic, and this list provides a short overview of them. Not wanting to work on an article to weed out original research and not-as-notable phenomena is not a criterion for deletion. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it may need sourcing more, and the RfC may affect this, but keep. ThuranX 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and is pure Listcruft. SirFozzie 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main problem is lack of internal structure: arranging the items by date within each group might be better than alphabetical. Objecytions to individual items for BLP etc. should go on the talk page of--and sometimes on the talk page of the article being linked to. DGG 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A serious request to proponent of keep[edit]

One of the criteria listed at WP:LISTS is "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources." Could someone please present an unambiguous statement of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources? Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST is a guideline, that means that we don't have to follow it word by word when not doing it makes sense. And it does in this case, IMHO. When we can have a category, why can't we have a list? A list of internet phenomena is interesting, encyclopaedic (compared to other kind of lists we have), and can be properly sourced. --Conti|✉ 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh I suspect the argle-bargle surrounding this list has something to do with the recent passing of "Brian Peppers Day." Like many of the pop culture lists, this does seem like a random collection of crap with no well-defined membership criteria. On the other hand, and I know this is not strictly relevant, where were you people when I was trying to get List of cultural references to "All your base are belong to us" deleted? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You failed to get a well known adminstrator to file an RFC regarding his behavior with respect to that article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. My bad... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is there anything wrong with keeping a list of internet phenomenons? 72.83.118.187 00:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I bet there is other pop culture and popular article on WP that are similar to Internet phenomena. What this list would support is the WP article regarding Internet and add weight to this technology being so influential in so many areas including entertainment and viral marketing..etc --Mikecraig 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Honestly, the article was a mess before, and I question whether some of the content should have been removed (not naming names, everyone knows what I'm talking about), but this article is the best place to keep random shit that people might look up which doesn't merit articles. JuJube 01:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main problem is lack of internal structure: arranging the items by date within each group might be better than alphabetical. But this, and considerations of the proper criteria, and Objections to individual items for BLP etc. should go on the talk page of--and sometimes on the talk page of the article being linked to. Could even be used as a list of possible BL{Ps to check.DGG 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it but only include entries with either a Wikipedia article, or reliable sources. —siroχo 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Article is at least as relevant as many other pop-culture articles on WP. Notability is definitely not a problem, nor is verifiability. If ever, rename to [[[List of Internet Memes]] or List of Notable Internet Memes and then narrow down the requirements in order to be on the list. WP:IAR should be the case here with using Internet sources as this IS a topic regarding the Internet. Shrumster 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Guy above. As long as there are some rationale guidelines for inclusion (third party sourcing, evidence of notability, etc.) there are no content policies that this list must violate. WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. problems need to be delt with but that doesn't require deletion. I might reconsider if it were convicingly argued that this list were unmaintainable rather than just poorly maintained but noone above seems to be arguing that. Eluchil404 06:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep An issue that is timely and here forever. (See current news on China's internet revolution) Revert for source work. Seek reliable sources and additional help. Lee Nysted 13:19, 23 February 2007 (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.