Talk:Evil Overlord List

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on October 26, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Parallel Development

What, if anything, should be said about this list?

http://www.globalguardians.com/stuff/overlord/eviloverlord.php

Anspach admits that this list developed separately and concurrently with his own, and while both authors have conceded that there has been cross-pollination, both lists are entities that stand on their own and were created separately. (In fact, according to the histories given by the creators, the one I linked to above predates Anspach's list.) So... what to do?

Merge it in. It's fairly clear to me that both Overlord Lists have been passed around and been influential, if only because of the cross-pollination. --maru (talk) contribs 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Done

[edit] Notability

This article has several in links. One of which Helen Darville involved a journalist being fired for plagarism of the list. Seems notable enough to keep. --RJFJR 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition to its pervasiveness in Internet culture/humor, of course. --maru (talk) contribs 07:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with its popularity here, on the internet or anywhere. Who wrote it? I'm assuming it has ownership if someone can plagiarize it. Is it a document? Following the link to the "original" posting page brings me to some kid's role-playing site. Apparently, the list was cooked up by some *other* kids on a sci-fi message board, and they seem to have cribbed it from a SNL skit.

This is NOT significant. It may be funny but it's self-promotion, pure and simple.ka1iban 14:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isnt self-promotion. The Evil Overlord list has been a fairly significant in SFF humour for a long time now. There are even extensions and imitations. Consider for example http://nielsenhayden.com/overlord/. Removing the warning. Hornplease 08:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The link I have added to the end - which provides links to the Evil Empress, Innocent Bystander and other lists, is one of several similar, all equally useful. Jackiespeel 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's definitely notable. I don't know if it fits the strictest definition of the term "internet meme", but it's a very well-known list. It's probably impossible to have any significant online involvement with the geek subculture (disclaimer: I don't mean "geek" in a pejorative way; I've seen Star Wars waaaay too many times to consider it anything other than an honorific!) without seeing this list at least once. It's so well-loved that parts of it have been reproduced in tons of places, which is why the link Ka1iban found was just to some kid's (Angelfire or Geocities or whatever it was) site. I think I even saw a (greatly abridged) version in Knights of the Dinner Table some years back. It's a veritable staple of geek humor. --Icarus 03:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I get all that. My point is, can/should it be quantified in an encyclopedic article or is it just an grand-scale example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT? I've seen Austin Powers, too, but I don't think this concept (however much it's poured over at Slashdot or alt.geeks.scifi or whereever) necessarily warrants an encyclopedic article. Also, the continued absence of information concerning the list's initial inception, authorship, publication, etc. is distressing. Apparently SOMEONE wrote it because someone else was charged with plagiarism for reprinting it. Having that expanded info about the list would go a long way toward this article's legitimization, I think. Without it...well, the article looks pretty unimportant. Don't tell me that you would hesitate to criticize an article about a book that was written by "some guys on the internet, a while ago" that's "super well known", etc etc. Let's get some hard facts; if they're not available, then it's just fancruft. ka1iban 13:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

excellent additions re: authorship and origin. This fits the bill nicely, IMO ka1iban 18:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability, part two

The notability arguments above boil down to (1) somebody got busted for plagiarizing it once, so it must be notable, and (2) lots of geeks know about it. I don't accept either of these; people get busted for plagiarizing trivial documents all the time. This does not elevate the documents to notable status. Should a Wikipedia article be created for every document plagiarized by Blair Hornstine? And the "geeks know about it test" come up pretty thin -- a google search for text in the list itself, omitting trivials, finds only 144 hits, which seems light for an "internet meme". Nexis finds no print hits, and only one blog hit (which seems to be a quotation of a single line from the list).

I accept that some people have heard the joke, and that it is notable to them, but it doesn't seem to me that many people have heard it, or that it's sufficiently notable to merit an article here. I'm calling for AFD. Uucp