Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet phenomena

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. Rje 00:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Internet phenomena

The concept of the article is fundamentally flawed: anything on the internet is an "internet phenomena", including this very AfD discussion. The article can never be anything but one big massive WP:OR violation. wikipediatrix 15:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is one of the most useful pages about internet memes out there. It can be a list of old and new ones, there is no need to delete something so useful, where else can you find a list like this? There needs to be some sort of list like this; there are allready wikipedia entries for every entry, there has to be some sort of master list so that people can navigate through them.

But this article is hella dope!!! Those Kimbo Slice videos changed my life. Ha ha, gosh. Hopefully 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. An internet phenomenon has an accepted definition, and a large number of those listed on the page have been covered by secondary news sources (Leeroy Jenkins, anyone?). This is a perfectly valid list, in fact, its a perfect example of what is a useful Wikipedia list. More to the point, if your deletion nomination's logic is considered valid, the same justification could be used to delete every single internet phenomenon on the list. Dark Shikari 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this "accepted definition" you speak of? And who accepted it? Most of the entries on this page speak of external events, news of which spreads on the internet - but how is that a valid internet phenomena? The article tells us that boxer Sid Eudy got knocked from the ring and that "the footage exploded across the internet". So what? The article tells us that Stephen Colbert criticized Bush at a dinner and that people on the internet talked about it for "several days afterward". So what? Other entries, like William Hung's or Robert Tilton's, don't even establish what, if anything, the entry has to do with the internet. And yes, I do think many of these entries' own articles should be deleted, like Anton Maiden, for one. wikipediatrix 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The "accepted definition" is in Wikipedia's own notability policy: once a phenomenon is covered by a secondary news source, it becomes verifiable and thus notable. Thus deleting the whole list is silly: it would be much more effective to do individual AfD nominations for the articles linked from the list that aren't verifiable or notable, and then to remove them. Removing the list removes a valid source of information without dealing with the problem of non-notable "phenomena" being on Wikipedia in the form of articles. Dark Shikari 15:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You still aren't hearing m e: what is the definition of an "internet phenomenon"? Who defined it? Show me sources. wikipediatrix 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:WEB. An internet phenomenon is any unusual meme that is propagated around the internet in great volume. It belongs on Wikipedia if it fits the WP:WEB guidelines as linked before. Dark Shikari 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you specify what part of WP:WEB illustrates your point. I see nothing on there that is relevant to this article's POV/OR problem. And while you're at it, define "unusual" and "in great volume" for me. These are POV terms. wikipediatrix 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A skyscraper is an "unusually tall building". Does that mean that we shouldn't have an article about skyscrapers? Anyways, please continue your comments in the below section: having two arguments at once is ridiculous. Dark Shikari 16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That didn't answer my questions. wikipediatrix 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. Of course there should be an article on skyscrapers. The question should have been: should be a list that includes all skyscrapers. The answer is obviously no, as it is debatable if a building is a skyscraper or not. (Of course, in the case of skyscrapers the situation is somewhat different, as you can do the following: List of tallest buildings in the world.) -- Koffieyahoo 08:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. List criteria is far too broad, far too widely open to WP:OR, and ultimately unverifiable. This list has the potential to rapidly explode to an unusable, unweildy, monstrous size. Non-encyclopedic and not useful. If something is a legitimate internet phenomenon, it can have its own (sourced) page. Scorpiondollprincess 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why not narrow the criteria and delete the internet phenomena (the articles themselves) that aren't notable or verifiable? Deleting the whole list is massive, stupid overkill. Its like blowing up the moon because you don't like the look of a few of the craters. Dark Shikari 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's like deleting a POV list because it's POV. The internet is a medium just like any other, so where's List of TV phenomena and List of radio phenomena? Someone or something getting their 15 minutes of pseudo-fame on the internet doesn't establish notability. What constitutes a true "internet phenomenon" is inherently a matter of personal opinion and can never be mutually agreed on. It's POV and OR on a grand scale. wikipediatrix 15:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable = covered by secondary sources per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Period. It isn't a matter of debate, nor is it a matter of POV. If an article linked from the list isn't notable by that definition, AfD it. If you disagree with the notability guidelines, this is not the place to debate it! Dark Shikari 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether an article should go to AfD or not has nothing to do with whether it should be mentioned on this list. wikipediatrix 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of the whole list can only be justified if everything on it is non-notable. If there are even just a few things on it which are notable, the list shouldn't be deleted, instead, everything except those notable articles should be deleted. Thus, by claiming the list should be deleted, you imply that not a single article on the list is notable, and thus that everything on the list should be deleted. Since that is what you imply, you should list them all for AfD individually instead of the whole list. Dark Shikari 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about articles? This isn't a list of articles, it's a list of incidents and persons. Their own separate articles have nothing to do with this list's fundamental POV/OR problem. wikipediatrix 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're making absolutely zero sense whatsoever. It is a list of articles. The information next to the article name is a summary of the linked article. The linked article describes an internet phenomenon. If the internet phenomenon is non-notable, so is the linked article, and thus the linked article should be deleted. Do you get it yet? Dark Shikari 16:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: the article tells us that Stephen Colbert criticized Bush at a dinner and that people on the internet talked about it for "several days afterward". This incident is supposed to be the internet phenomena, not Stephen Colbert in general. And you're telling me that if this incident involving Colbert is non-notable, then so is his linked article?? wikipediatrix 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is an exception. Most of the articles on that page are of the form "Hamsterdance: Blah blah blah summary of hamsterdance article" or also "Person who got most of his fame from the internet phenomena: blah blah blah summary." If such a claim about Stephen Colbert is uncited, you can delete it: you don't need an AfD to delete a single line on the page of an article, or even 50 lines on the page of an article. The other claims rely directly on the notability of the article they link to. To be more precise, if every single listing on the page was as you described (like Stephen Colbert) and had no citation, I would support deletion of the list because there would be no verifiable content on the list. Dark Shikari 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I only bring it up because you keep talking about articles. The individual articles are not on trial here, this list is. wikipediatrix 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And the list is perfectly fine for blatantly obvious reasons. If you think something isn't verifiable and doesn't belong on the list, delete it! Be bold! Dark Shikari 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Also, for the information of the nominator, an internet phenomenon is also known as a "fad." Beanie babies, for example, were a notable fad. Notable web fads (also known as internet phenomena) have articles about them, such as this one by CNET: http://www.cnet.com/4520-11136_1-6268155-1.html Dark Shikari 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then rename the article List of internet fads. By definition, "fad" is only one of many types of "phenomena". wikipediatrix 16:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you google both terms in quotes, you will find "internet phenoma/phenomenon" is more widely used, and thus under Wikipedia guidelines should be the title. Dark Shikari 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case (and I'm not sure I agree that it is), then the term needs to be defined for the article in a manner that's free of POV and OR, and I don't think that's possible. Earlier in this thread, you couldn't define it without using POV/OR terms like "unusual" and "great". wikipediatrix 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you delete Skyscraper under that logic, because a skyscraper cannot be defined without POV terms either, such as "very tall" (what does that mean?) or "unusually high". Or what about a mansion versus a house? A mansion can only be described as "unusually large" or "very large." Do you suggest we delete the article on mansions also? Dark Shikari 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude. You just linked to Skyscraper yourself. Show me where on the page it says "unusually". wikipediatrix 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to totally miss the point. First words on the page are "A skyscraper is a very tall, continuously habitable building." Please read the WHOLE post before replying next time... --Bky1701 09:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Dark Shikari. KASchmidt 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an event has to be notabile to make this list. Perhaps in the future it can be broken into sublists. Harvestdancer 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to "Internet phenomena" and remove the list, except for a few examples. --Sbluen 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Dark Shikari. I don't see the POV claim here. The language in the article appears neutral with no glaring weasel words. Yes it is a large article but the wide range of topics invites a large number of editors to view it and help maintain it. I agree with Dark Shikari that the number one criteria here should be verification from a secondary source and you already see the editors on the Talk Page moving towards this consensus. That gives me great confidence that this article can be maintained. The list is inherently notable in the subject matter with anyone who has been on the internet for even a small amount of time being able to scan through and go "OMG! I remember that!" on numerous occassions. The very fact that Wikipedia is web based strongly gears this article towards our most common audience. Agne 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the nominator has conceded that s/he'd be OK with a mere name change to List of internet fads (see wikipediatrix's post at 16:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)); I'm agnostic about the renaming, but the article is a keeper (even per the nominator). Carlossuarez46 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, you're making a false assumption about what I said. If the article was indeed renamed List of internet fads, almost everything in the current article would have to be jettisoned to fit the stricter definition of "fad". Which, IMHO, is a good thing. But I have never said or even implied that a mere name change would make it all OK. wikipediatrix 19:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - needs a lot of work, but it should be kept. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Dark Shikari completely. Avengerx 19:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - would this whole thing not be better served as a category? Anything that is acceptable as an article passes the test and can be included by category. Anything that isn't an article is too minor to be included. -- Whpq 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Best idea I've heard all day. wikipediatrix 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an 'Internet Memes' category, but it might be a good idea to change its definition to include what is described here as 'Internet Phenomenon'. However, a category list may be easier to maintain, but it would sacrifice detail on many subjects. (For example, this page is the only page which I know of that has any information on the elusive 'eon8'. Eon8's article was deleted and blocked some time ago, and therefore would not appear on any category that would be made, even though a useful source of encyclopedic information on it would be welcome. MrD 01:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Keep in that the article should exist; weak in that 4/5 of the content should be deleted. --Hamiltonian 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - It provides infamous stuff like Eon8 and many others making the content valuable and therefore 4/5 of the content should stay. 24.188.203.181 00:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per ZeWrestler.--RicardoC 01:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Dark Shikari. As it stands, there have been more than a few articles deleted with comments that they should be reduced to entries on this page instead. Without this page, we'll see AfD explode as people create entries for things that aren't notable enough for an article but notable enough for this page. (Brian Peppers, for example.) Full disclosure: Yes, I'm referenced in an entry on the page; I'd support keeping it even if I wasn't. Jay Maynard 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Stron Keep per Dark Shikari. Here's to hoping that the keeps wont be ignored here because an unverified claim of "they were told to come here" like nearly all vfds I've seen relating to internet culture Johhny-turbo 01:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per User:Hamiltonian. —xyzzy_n 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Wikipediatrix nominated it for deletion, which seems to be a good indicator that it should be kept. Daniel Case 03:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Failure to provide a relevant reason to your vote may lead to it being overlooked by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Wikipediatrix has been blocked twice in the last several days for willful disregard of civility and consensus. As this discussion demonstrates, she has often first sided with the "Cleanup" people (which I would support) and then suddenly taken it here without bothering to build a consensus for such action on the article's talk page. She is also not above insulting people in discussions (I am beginning to suspect some of her deletions are motivated by a desire to remove evidence of her tart keyboard in anticipation of the RFC she has to know is coming) and edit summaries, and has refused to respond to reasonable efforts to resolve disputes. Apparently it's her way or the highway.
This indicates bad faith to me and, due to the background of these nominations I would, were I to be the closing admin, immediately suspend the debate as a bad faith nomination (We have done this in the past, I think).
In summary, the article needs cleanup not deletion. Daniel Case 02:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per this article is hella dope and Kimbo Slice will break our necks if we delete him. Hopefully 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Failure to provide a relevant reason to your vote may lead to it being overlooked by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 07:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. -- ColonelAngus 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Now per WP:OR. -- CaptainLonginus 23:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest Delete per WP:OR . -- Commander 23:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note (unrelated to my keep above) that the three preceding comments are probably by the same person (see history and [1]. —xyzzy_n 11:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not only that, but they (he?) have all been waging a private revert war in the article over one particular entry that they feel should be retained, and so have ulterior motives for voting "delete": "If you won't keep my entry, then you won't have an article at all!" Jay Maynard 13:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pcpp 11:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Failure to provide a reason to your vote may lead to it being overlooked by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - good place for all that cruft that no one cares about but everyone insists creating - we can trim most terabyteful articles about minor fads to a couple of sentences and put them here. With proper criteria of inclusion, this will work just fine and everyone will be happy. If minor fads have to be covered, let it be done this way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Batmobile 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Failure to provide a reason to your vote may lead to it being overlooked by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep One of the best resources for this sort of thing is Wikipedia, and somone want it gone? How about deleting the exploding animals page? Or all the unusual articles?--Planetary 16:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Replace by category, with those items which should not have an article, but are otherwise notable, listed in the category description. (I can think of only one or two.) In almost all cases, if an item should be listed here, it should have a Wikipedia article, and vice versa. AfD's are probably cleaner than edit wars in this article would be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Immediate Removal This article dows not belong in even the most liberal of encyclopedias.

Cabron | (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Definite keep, renamed to List of internet fads, Redirect existing name to where it's at now. rootology 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Should be noted that virtually every entry already has it's own article--which is why this is good, it's a simple but valuable synopsis page that will allow people looking such things up to find the related content easily and quickly. Serves a definite good purpose and deserves inclusion. rootology 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. You could change it to "internet fad" and clean it up. These things have cultural relevance. I use this article when I don't know what something is that a lot of people online are talking about. --Bluejay Young 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Don't we already have a category for this? Pointless list, POV issues are present as there is no standard of what is an internet phenomenon, etc. GassyGuy 21:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Further note - A lot of these entries are misleading if not outright wrong. The band O-Zone is not an Internet phenomenon. Colin Mochrie is not an Internet phenomenon. They may somehow be tied to Internet-related activities, but loose affiliation with some aspect of the Internet is hardly what makes an Internet phenomenon. This list is now useless on two fronts: 1) We have categories for Internet related things. 2) It has such broad, unclear, and POV inclusion criteria that it is all but useless. GassyGuy 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind this article gets daily additions (mainly from anonymous IPs), and it is very difficult to keep track of what are legitimate entries and what are not. The band O-Zone is a questionable addition, yes. They were added because their song became popular due to the "Numa Numa" video. Does that make them a phenom? I don't know. Probably not. Can this entry be deleted, since this is already covered in the "Numa Numa" entry? Probably. And Colin Mochrie is an example of an Internet phenomenon. He is the "mascott" (for lack of a better term) for the animutations, appearing in almost every one. I didn't know about this either before reading about it on this article, but then, that's what this article is for. I do think we need to establish standards of what makes something/someone a true Internet phenomenon (it has been discussed, but nothing really set yet), so editors can immediately delete additions that don't meet the qualifications (I would LOVE this job, btw). Wavy G 04:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Animutations, whatever those may be, could very well be Internet phenomena. Colin Mochrie may be associated with Animutations. That does not make him an Internet phenomenon. In the same way, Vin Diesel Facts were an Internet phenomenon - Vin Diesel is not. GassyGuy 04:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Article could use a reconstruction/paring down from its current state. Like you said, "Vin Diesel facts" is a phenom, but not "Vin Diesel" himself. Same could be said for animutations and Colin Mochrie. A lot of it probably stems from the "which category here should this go under?" question, which I'm sure arises whenever someone makes an addition. Wavy G 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Internet phenomenon is an accepted term by scholars of the internet. Chabane Djeraba, Richard Kahn, Souiza de Silva have all used the term in published papers. The only WP:OR problem here is deciding what is and isn't a phenomenon since so few have been treated academically. If the article is deleted, a new one entitled Internet Phenomenon should be created that explains the concept and gives academically verifiable examples.Vesperal 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep I personally use this to keep up on what is new on the internet. i usually only use places like Fark, SA, 4chan, etc., and i can't keep up with the times without this list. that, and it provides me with a quick look up for memes and the like..Mreddy1

  No reason to keep provided that is in line with any Wikipedia policy Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - the article is a mess and vetting of inclusions is non-existent. Use categories. If the article passes muster, it gets included in the category, otherwise, the article does not exist, and the category remains free of crud. -- Whpq 02:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What would you recommend for those things that have had articles deleted with recommendations that they be listed in this one instead? Jay Maynard 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If they weren't worthy of inclusion in their own article, and they failed to improve this article, perhaps they're not worth including in this particular resource. However, it's impossible to generalize - that would have to be assessed on a case by case basis if there's an article to which they might contribute something. Housing information for the sake of housing it does not necessarily improve the work if the information is not actually beneficial. GassyGuy 03:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete : Listcruft --Targetter 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - The concept that "anything on the Internet" is automatically an Internet phenomenon is a specious claim. If the problem is with the word "phenomenon," then change the name of the article to Internet "fad" or Internet "memes," but don't delete. Article exists for a purpose. Also, article is not original research, as many of the entries have been cited by second party sources (not everything is cited yet, no, but you can't expect that to happen overnight). Needs a lot of work, but I think it can easily meet the criteria. Wavy G 04:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Could you clarify just what purpose it's serving that wouldn't be better served by a category? And, no, you can't expect reliable sources for all of them immediately, but WP:V leads me to believe that you can expect them to be excluded from Wikipedia until those sources exist. GassyGuy 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(Addressing the question of the articles purpose) a category is for articles. Not everything should have an article. It's that simple. Some items on the list are not important enough to have their own articles, but they can be "listed" here. If the entry has its own article, by all means, link to it. But not everything that is an "Internet phenomenon" deserves an article. I can't think of any examples except for something like List of minor Star Wars droids. Not all of the Star Wars "droids" need their own articles, but should probably be mentioned somewhere, so why not put them here? Wavy G 04:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've pretty much said all I have to say, but because you and many others have made this point, I will add - I am not of the mind that they "have to be mentioned somewhere" if somewhere means "somewhere on Wikipedia." Not everything needs to be mentioned. It's a pointless fight to attempt to delete the minor droid list, but minor droids sure seem more like Memory Alpha material than encyclopaedic stuff to me. Anyway, my point is, Wikipedia is a good resource, but it's not a one-stop shopping center. It can always include links to relevant offsite sources of information - it does not have to host every little thing. GassyGuy 05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I found it right now and don't have time to read it all. Either wait a few days to delete or move it off article space so I can read the rest. It's really long. Anomo 06:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with large edit. Some of the content listed should definately be deleted. I wouldn't call 'AOL speak' or Leet speak a meme, for example. At one point the article was rather concise, but it recently expanded. --Zooba 09:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Just don't see the point in keeping this article, seems to be more of a personal website/promotional site for various users. --User:America Online 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that the article does not contain "personal/promotion websites" of any kind. There is a section of "Personal websites," but they are indeed genuine (and quite verifiable) Internet phenomena (such as "The Best Page in the Universe," etc). I've been watching the article for some time and I have seen a lot of entries come and go, and although self-promotion additions are quite often attempted, they are almost always deleted immediately (there are many users who keep a watchful eye on the article). The only entry on the page that you could actually argue this point for would be "Tron Guy" (aka Jay Maynard) who did write his own article/entry, although, as he admits, it was done before he read Wikipedia's policy on autobiographies (Wikipedia:Autobiography). And yes, Tron Guy is a genuine phenomenon (at one point he was a mainstay on Jimmy Kimmel's show due to the popularity of his Tron guy website). Wavy G 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Even if the content is not verifiable (and I have no reason to think it's not), this page should be kept for the sole reason of givin people interested in the subject the information they need. A warning could be a good idea too. Something to tell people "The information on this page is presented as it was first presented in the forum/site/blog etc it first appeared. It may not be 100% truthful"
• Keep. The Internet is a vast place, and new people discover it every day. This page should be kept so people can be educated about its past.

• strong keep as above --El cid the hero 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, with clean-up, because many of the things on it aren't notable. But things that are notable should be cleaned up and expanded. Having a Wikipedia article on this is a great compilation of information that would otherwise be only scattered all over the internet and very hard to find. TheDavesr 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per DarkShikari and Wwwwolf. --Kizor 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN, See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/65.8.88.157 where there are claims that sockpuppetry is involved in the voting here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The culture of the Internet is still very new and in a formative stage. Articles such as this give background to a variety of historical phenomena that would surely vanish from knowledge without. Reverend Raven 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Very strong keep this is the best list of internet phenomenon on the internet. Pure inuyasha 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ditch This Entry Internet Phenomena? More like it's a phenomena how this crap ended up in an encyclopedia. CesarB 05:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indifferent

Who really cares? These are far too many overly passionate poesters around here.

http://www.tomspine.com/photos/gmg2004/02_paul_me.jpg

FBI Loves Wiki 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When does the Voting Conclude?

• When will this poll end?

Could a mod/admin explain?

AOL RULES!

BaldBEaver 05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom - closing admin, please look out for sockpuppets first-time voters. Proto::type 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT (a web directory) and WP:V from WP:RS. WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL are not policy even if the interesitngness or usefulness were objectively provable. Any whuach are substantive and verifiable can be placed in an appropriate category. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that they couldn't be policy, if such a consensus was reached. MrD 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously. --CygnusPius 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Failure to explain your vote may lead to it being ignored by the closing administrator. Proto::type 13:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this is history. Orangehead 15:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's huge and messy, and I'm sure some people have added thier own crap in the hopes that this will make it an internet phenomenon. But It does offer a good synopsis of various fads and things circulating on the internet. It just needs a huge amount of clean up, wikifying, and patroling by knowledgable people. I recognized about 60% of the list which means that at least that much is accurate. Perhaps there should be some sort of quantitative criteria for inclusion on the list, like number of downloads, reference in mainstream media, or the fad jumping from the internet into popular culture. I don't think a fad that only a very small group recognizes should be able to qualify. - Tiki God 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  I've done a fair bit of watching the article, but I've been loath to delete things just because I've never heard of them. Some objective criteria would be helpful, but those are quite difficult to nail down - just as notability is in the encyclopedia as a whole. Jay Maynard 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I was looking for a list of cultural phenomenon, but instead found this list. While I agree that a good part of this article is against WP:OR, there are several items in the list that can be documented as existing phenomenon by trusted published sources. Several items in the list have this documentation within the individual articles. --Mattarata 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep This list deserves to be deleted in its entirely; it has many faults and is clearly in need of major improvement. Still, would you rather give each of these seperate pages? If we delete this list, hardcore fans will probobly come and create individual articles about these topics, thus creating needless articles/vandalism. Elouamn 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, the vast majority of these things ALREADY have their own articles. Really. --Hamiltonian 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep At the very least, this serves as a useful index of all the articles concerning influences/phenomenon in internet culture. Also, the need for references/sources for this type of subject matter is almost unreasonable, as news reporters/publishers only cover certain things, and aren't even that knowledgable about the Internet in the first place; the news is pre-biased towards events that have been traditionally covered in news that may not be more significant than internet happenings, but are what the old people from the pre-Internet generation want to hear; one can't depend solely upon publications/news for what deserves to be information and what does not. I'm a bit tired right now, so if I didn't make sense up there, just ignore it. But I still think this should be a keep.--Dch111 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as per Dark Shikari Nevah 04:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Does WP:OR even apply to lists, linking to articles that DO have sourcesz? Userpie 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Dark Shikari. --Bigtop 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• "'Strong Keep'" - one of the most useful sites I know of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghostatlo (talk • contribs) 19:59, August 1, 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is an invaluable collection of memes, wiki wiki - nick:kr4y - date: 1 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.37.95 (talk • contribs) 23:21, August 1, 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but maybe split it up into its various sections (e.g. List of Audio Internet phenomena, List of Video Internet phenomena) Jevon 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but only if we can establish some criteria on classifying something as a phenomenon (number of hits or views maybe? Or perhaps being mentioned in the news...) Zorath 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, useful and entertaining index of internet memes. -- Femmina 16:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Shikari, Useful list of esoteric internet history. Drett 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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.