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 keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates versus Ninjas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This should just be a summary in List of Internet phenomena. As the article stands, it's just a single line of actual information followed by a (largely self-serving) list of places that mention the phenomenon. This is only ever going to become a horrible mess; it's just not necessary or helpful. Wikipedia does not need to be a hub for pirate/ninja humour. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Minkle Slowberries (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Popular meme. Well sourced article. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't sources, they're just links. A reference is something attached to information to show where that information comes from. The article is essentially a portal. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read two of the points in the article, followed the reference links to the relevant page and the information was there. I'm not sure what you are talking about? Perhaps you think that the wp article has to have exactly the same words as that on the cited page? Unless they are direct quotes they don't, they have to demonstrate the point is factually correct, not taken out of context or otherwise skewed. I don't necessarily disagree that the article looks a bit like a portal, but this is an internet meme, so articles like this will always look like a portal, it lives on the internet and nowhere else much. To me the article looks fine and the cites look fine, so I don't really have much else to say on the matter now. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more links to other articles and websites than there are words in the informative part of the article. They're not references, they're indiscriminate trivia. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It certainly needs cleanup, but I think this meme is a notable one. NPR:[1][2]; Emory's student paper:[3]; Fredericksburg paper:[4]; Rocky Mountain News:[5]; Wired's GeekDad blog:[6]; the offical Google blog:[7]; Know Your Meme:[8]; lots of sources cover the meme in the context of the Pirates vs Ninjas Dodgeball computer game[9] and Facebook application[10][11] and other games.[12]; a comic book:[13]; a musical:[14] Fences&Windows 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This the place for notable memes. Note that your suggestion to keep and improve is same as the result of the first AfD request. It didn't work then, and I don't see why now is any different. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you know so much about Wikipedia, you'll be kind enough to let us know the accounts you've edited under before? Actually, keeping and improving is not the same as merging to a list, and if you want to improve it using the sources I've found, please do go ahead, and then you can withdraw this nomination. Fences&Windows 20:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should he/she have to talk about previous accounts? This isn't a social club or popularity contest, is it? It's supposed to be a repository of information. Or was once. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a legitimate accusation to make (with y'know, facts and evidence to back it up) then please go through the official channels so that it can be dealt with. If your comment is as it appears, please find better ways to cope with opinions that do not match your own. Have a read through Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the duck test, an account created for the purpose of nominating an article for deletion that uses jargon like AfD is not a new user and is probably a sockpuppet. Using an alternative account to nominate articles for deletion is not a legitimate use. As for WP:NOT, try reading WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "test" of anything, that's outright attack via policy! Nominating an article for deletion is not unusual behaviour, and is in fact something that Wikipedia explicitly suggests that you create an account for. Not every new user deserves to be accused of sockpuppetry for not being a blustering idiot.

Can you find anything that satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(memes) in any way? Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Default to keep A deletion discussion ending or merge and/or redirect is one thing, but since the nominator identifies a merge/redirect location in their nomination it renders a discussion about whether or not to delete the thing completely redundant. Someoneanother 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep No attempt has been made to observe the deletion prerequisites. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones, specifically? I would expect very clear and concrete violations of those rules to qualify your claim--not vague interpretations--so I must be particularly dense in not seeing any. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any of those points could be twisted to argue for the inclusion of any non-inflammatory content in Wikipedia, which is no doubt how poor articles like this manage to exist. Similarly, I could interpret them to suit my argument: 2) I read it, understood it, and saw the poor editing. Didn't come to the conclusion that the article should stay in spite of this. 3) It's beyond tagging, but I would agree that tags would be an improvement should the article stay. 4) Considered it, proposed it. It should redirect to a blurb in the Internet memes article. 7) Read it, didn't come to the same conclusion as you. 9) Apparently we disagree on what is a source and what is cruft/spam. 10) Not a recent article, history suggests that it's an unsalvageable mess.

I'm yet to see an argument showing the content to be useful. Instead we're just told that it's a popular meme (so? It belongs on the popular Internet meme page as suggested in the nomination) and that it has a lot of sources (Wikipedia likes sources, right? So we'll just call the inappropriate collection of links sources and pretend that this makes the content legitimate...? No.) Minkle Slowberries (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to wherever the stupid Internet catchphrases are usually kept. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a notable stupid Internet catchphrase though. Fences&Windows 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a long-lived and widespread internet meme, which also combines two other long-lived and widespread memes. It's hard to see why this should *not* be seen as notable. Ringbark (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete i do not see any third party sources that actually discuss this "meme"; merely a list of primary sources to games that contain pirates and/or nijas. WP:SYN switched to weak keep EDIT to add or merge end of editPer User:Dream Focus I went to the google news and was able to find (minimal) third party content from reliable sources about Pirates v. Ninjas which has been added to the article. Active Banana (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting most of the article was an improvement, but watch as people add their own links back in, meaning that it has to be tirelessly watched and pruned forever (and I'm sure it will just end up back its previous state). The article content in its current state could be moved to List of Internet phenomena and we wouldn't have this problem. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose a merge.Active Banana (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Take a brief moment to click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. [15] The "Pirate versus Ninjas" internet meme is mentioned in some news articles. Its got coverage. Dream Focus 03:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Real Ultimate Power. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2010 (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.