Talk:Internet phenomenon/Arc-Nov2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Ska Girl?

Does anyone have any links to this so called person? I've searched and nothing comes up on google so I don't think it deserves to be a "phenomenon". If she exists. ---User:Euphoric1

[edit] Cleanup

I think this article needs to have order and the titles recategorised. I've made an attempt at this in arranging the celebs into where they come from, ie, 'myspace', 'youtube' etc. Chavatshimshon 03:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the concept of an "Internet phenomenon." A phenomenon is something spread memetically across the web. If you are able to categorize something on this list as being from a specific website, well, then it isn't really a phenomenon. Just because you saw something on Youtube doesn't mean it should be listed as a "Youtube phenomenon" (a specious term). Wavy G 03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Should the phenomenon be categorised? At the moment they are being categorised as 'celebs' which also is not a term for 'phenomenon'?

[edit] Gendo Ikari

I see Gendo's article and at the bottom it says "List of Internet celebrities". I check and right there is Gendo's name. Why he is there is on his talk page but why isn't he here if he is there?74.96.212.21 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soup of the Day

OK, but what proof is there of it being a phenomenon? I'm hesistant to take the word of someone who's already invested time in adding to the article without evidence that it warrants being included on this list Alvis 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep -- Numa numa (Gary) -- an "Internet musical phenomenon" it is unlike other on the net -- born on the Internet and convey's a happiness which many if not most people sorely need.

--MAURY 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page host to a bunch of internet memes? Isn't htere a page just for that? Can people keep it to relevant information? --65.120.80.8 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there's been one or two users creating the SOTD article and listing it as a "phenomenon". Can anyone confirm it as such? If not, its inclusion in this article seems like an advertising ploy. The SOTD article itself hasn't existed for more than a week. That's far too early to label it as a "phenomenon". Alvis 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nigga Stole my bike

you know you want to....--63.250.245.16 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

it really should be in thereEAB 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Hotti

Lee Hotti was added back. The editor said "see reference" (indicating that the author was aware that it had been removed as being non-notable) but the only reference given is leehotti.com. Is leehotti.com really a good indication of notability? Wavy G 22:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked when I saw that, and there's enough Google hits on enough different sites that I'm persuaded he's notable. Jay Maynard 00:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EEHHMSTM

I dont see that here, isnt that an internet fad too?? Some1 should add it

Sure, but before we do, I have one question: What the hell is EEHHMSTM? Wavy G 20:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Everybody Else Has Had More Sex Than Me" (and while I'm on the topic and able to express my opinion, it is neither cute nor funny). Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing with the cute little bunny and the sex stuff www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/bunny.php

[edit] David Duke is a…

Is there any evidence for the notability of that David Duke thing? There are less than one thousand hits for the phrase on Google and an article on the topic was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=David_Duke_is_a_malignant_narcissist speedily deleted. —xyzzyn 14:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This segment is significant, regardless of what you say, and I shall continue to restore it each and every time you delete it. I have checked the logs and I am not the creator nor am I the only individual to edit this piece, thus it will remain should I have anything to do with it. If you persist I will spend the day deleting you edits upon wikipedia by deeming them all insignificant or unprecedented. Stop being an arrogant jerk, because something may not be important to you doesn’t mean it’s worthless to others. —colonel angus


Sir, it is absolutely immaterial how many people edited that ‘piece’. What is material is its apparent failure to meet encyclopedic standards. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and verifiability is a necessity. Unless the item you are defending meets the standards, it will be deleted.
By the way, please refrain from making personal attacks and remember to sign your posts on talk pages. —xyzzyn 14:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop altering this entry you Neo-Nazi sympathizer. —colonel angus

I'm not a neo-Nazi or a sympathizer. However, I do believe it's time to reach a consensus here before it's re-added. Right now, it looks more like the guy who wrote the essay is trying to use Wikipedia to promote it. Jay Maynard 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I’m inclined to believe that this essay has no promotional component for it is not produced with the intent of financial gain. Wikipedia's page of Internet Phenomena merely depicts various oddities and "Phenomena" on the net to which this essay can be categorized. Since various people have posted this anonymous analysis all over the World Wide Web, I feel as though it is justified and appropriate for this Wikipedia page. What is more “phenomenal”, “Nigga Know Technology” or “David Duke is a malignant Narcissist?” Captain Longinus 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Financial gain is not the only reason people want to promote something. This one could easily be looking for the seal of legitimacy that a mention in Wikipedia would provide, especially for an attack on one's opponent. As for notability, it is yet to be seen that the Duke essay is, in fact, notable. Finally, the Blogs section is a miscategorization; it would go in the Text-Based section, if anywhere, since the Blogs section lists blogs, not entries in them. Jay Maynard 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, let’s have at it.
  • A couple of days ago, the title of the essay got ca. 0.5 kilohits on Google. Now it has 10 kilohits, but, considering the forums where the essay is being propagated (see below), this is not much, and certainly too little to justify inclusion of any kind in Wikipedia by itself.
  • Excluding blogs from the search (by a trivial addition of ‘-blog’) reduces the number to 0.4 kilohits, which means the essay has no independent coverage.
  • It having been established that the essay is non-notable, its repeated insertion is an attempt at promotion of the essay. Wikipedia has strict rules on writing about living people and, David Duke being, regrettably, still one of them, this promotion cannot meet those rules, even if we were to leave aside the more general issue of spamming.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the material must not be included here because it contravenes Wikipedia policy. —xyzzyn 00:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I must note that you, Mr. xyzzyn sound like the individual with the agenda or personal vendetta. I have read the wikipedia policies and find that the ambiguous language is pliable enough to support both views. However, since you seem so morally opposed to this entry, perhaps it should not be presented. After all, what you say goes; you are seemingly the King of Wikipedia. I have reviewed you prior edits and contributions and either you are an egomaniacal cyber cop, or a person with too much time on their hands. You’re power trips give me nothing but humor. Who cares about the David Duke essay, you are far more pathetic. -User: 64.12.116.196

  • Wow read this:

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks

This guideline is disputed.

"This is not official policy. A clear consensus did not emerge from a discussion and vote on the talk page. "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (emphasis original). It is left up to individuals to decide whether to apply it themselves, and if they do they may find themselves held accountable for questionable uses."

Looks like this whole David Duke article is back into play!

Sorry Mr. xyzzyn Should I replace this deleted content, or will you? —colonel angus 22:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guess what? This is a dumb-as-hell flame war. Stop it or I'll ask a mod for you guys to stop. The velociraptor 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weebl's Stuff

"Weebl's Stuff" is the origin of Magical Trevor and Badger Badger Badger, both of which are referenced in the list here, along with numerous other Internet cartoon/song memes. So why was it deleted? Because it's essentially a spin-off of b3ta? It seems that it's just as notable in its own right these days. --Stevefarrell 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, but to me, it doesn't belong in that list because it's the place the animations are published, while the other sites list and popularize stuff originating elsewhere. The other sites aren't the origin of anything, really, just places where folks spread things around. Does that make sense? Jay Maynard 09:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That does make sense, but the same is true of Albino Blacksheep, Newgrounds, and YTMND. I suppose it's not that important, I just thought it should be there if those other collections of flash animations/song memes were. I suppose the main difference is that almost everything on Weebl's Stuff is by the same guy. What bothered me most was that it was deleted with the summary 'reverted vandalism'. --Stevefarrell 11:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Offensive Language

I object to the use of the word "n*gger" on this page. Please take note; you may take whatever action you please. Even if one replaces the "er" with an "a" the term maintains its profane and utterly offensive value. --Captain_Longinus 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that 80% of this page is nonsense and not sufficient enough to be mentioned, nor is it adequate information for Wikipedia publicity. This entire page is non-notable, review notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Internet_phenomena speedily deleted.

-User: 64.12.116.196


Wikipedia can not and will not be censored, so people can use the word "nigger" in any way and as many times in articles as they please. MisterCheese 02:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Whatever you say Mr. Cheese... Seems to me like you belong in that whole debate above regarding David Duke. You better be African-American or my wrath shall punish you. Take your racism elsewhere! No censorship OR BIGOTRY on wikipedia.

john k 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


This is my case, this article must be deleted! I will flag the specific aspects, even if they seem redundant. {{db-nonsense}}

{{db-attack}}
{{db-disparage}}
{{deletebecause|Racist Material, Propaganda, Rhetoric}}

WP:DELETE

{{civil1}}
{{disputed}}
CaptainLonginus 22:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.88.157 (talk • contribs) .

I de-tagged this because none of the criteria really apply, and you're apparently impersonating another user (or mistakenly not logged in). Also racism and PoV isn't speedy criteria. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peak-A-Boo!

  • How to win at the game of Wiki:
Just go comando in the rain...
(FBI Loves Wiki/FBI Loves Wiki) 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A million ways

As of yet there is no article on this but I think this has been popular enough on the internet to be added onto this list.www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dJEa44Wgtk

If it is notable, please provide proof of notability, (rather than a link to the youtube site). Wavy G 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics

What is the meaning of the item on webcomics? They are an art form that uses the WWW, but how does that amount to an Internet meme? —xyzzyn 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it doesn't. Wavy G 03:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source citations for Internet fads being faster than pre-Internet?

Several sentences in the article, none of them sourced, imply that Internet fads are different in kind from those that preceded them:

An Internet phenomenon (sometimes called an Internet meme) occurs when something relatively unknown becomes increasingly popular, often quite suddenly, through the mass propagation of media content made feasible by the Internet; however, the popularity of the phenomenon usually wanes as rapidly as it was acquired: the Internet's lack of physical boundaries leads to a much faster and wider spread...

Does anyone have a source citation to show that this alleged faster, wider spread is actually the case?

It's by no mean clear to me that the average person in 2006 emails a larger number of people every day the average person in 1906 talked to. Innumerable old phrases such as "seven days' wonder" attest to the startling speed with which rumors and sensations could spread before the Internet. "A lie can travel half-way around the world while truth is still lacing up her boots" has been attributed to Mark Twain.

In the really old days, of course, information spread at the speed of shipping, and proclamations ending wars needed to included phased timings declaring the hostilities would end at different dates in different places in order to allow for the time for the ships carrying the dispatches to read their destinations... or at least so it said in an Horatio Hornblower novel. But since, say, the 1930s, with telephone, telegraph, Atlantic cable, radio broadcasting, wire services, and rapidly printed newspapers... the speed of propagation is mostly limited by social, not technological characteristics.

Andy Warhol's remark about everyone being famous for fifteen minutes predates the Internet.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that the Internet is actually faster and creates faster and shorter-lived sensations. I'm just wondering whether there is a good, citable source for this assertion. I sometimes think netizens are much too ready to believe they are engaged in something unprecedented in human history. That credulity was, in my opinion, one of the sources of the Internet bubble. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I'm not asking for guesses as to why the Internet might be different, I'm asking for good source citations that say it is. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection!

I added Objection!, (objection.4camp.net), because I think it's more well-known than many others on that list. It has over 100,000 objections and 400,000 hits.

Uh... whoever removed Objection!... it has an article. It was never deleted. I don't get your reasoning, here. MrD 09:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear MrD:* the problem is simple, there are these foolish, self-important, social retards such as Wavy G & xyzzyn who believe they are the WIKI-POLICE. These jerks spend all day on wikipedia, monitoring certain pages like the IRS reviews my income. They are losers, and you can not win with them, because no matter how hard you try, these yetis will delete your content just to piss you off. -Colonle Angus 09:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well... as long as Objection! remains a Wikipedia page, it should be in this list. Otherwise, this list is needlessly inaccurate with reference to the Wikipedia as a whole. Objection! is on VfD, yes, but I believe it should have not been placed on VfD. It was only on Wikipedia for less than a day before it was placed on VfD, which I believe is not long enough for its encyclopedic relevance to be fully developed, cited and presented. Many Wiki articles begin as a simple list or phrase, mainly based on information either not cited, or of an intrinsically uncitable nature. Based on the statistics shown on the FAQ page, it's not an insignificant meme, and it's been featured on many forums time and again. Of course, the FAQ page may be doctored, but that would be seriously low. However, the discussion of Objection!s right to exist in Wikipedia is a discussion that should be limited to the Talk page for that article, and the relevant VfD page, but that's just my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. ^_^ MrD 12:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Jong Il

Claiming that great feats attributed to the Dear Leader are "absurd" and "outlandish" clearly violates NPOV. We demand apology juice nida! <丶｀Д´>

[edit] Internet phenomena

I voted weak keep on this article because I think it should exist. It should not be a "List of things that were popular on the internet" article, but instead a "List of things that were popular because of the internet" article. I'm going to start removing items that would only fit in the former, and keep things that would fit in the latter. For instance, the Ted Stevens footage was all over the TV at the same time as the internet; the Robert Tilton footage was popular as a video tape first, etc. Are these popular things? Yep. Are they popular things on the internet? Sure. Are they things made popular on the internet first? No. (If we are going to put a list of things that are popular on the internet, this page would, say, have to include thousands of popular websites, and the top handful of news stories from every single day of the past decade or so as well.) --Hamiltonian 12:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


How about a strong delete regarding this article. --Cabron 22:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this... Same guy?

The user has also been changing things here, recently in tandem with 152.163.100.195 (talk • contribs). Typically they are changes intended to present a conservative Christian view as if they are "mainstream" scholarship. For example, "the mainstream stance on the subject is that he remained celibate until his death." With such a paucity of evidence, a determination that Jesus died a virgin is well beyond anything but speculation and faith! Other editors, please be careful of edits by this user — some of the changes are quite sneaky.
  • ntennis 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

--Cabron 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Hasselhoff

"The Hoff", frequent photoshop fodder,[1] should be in the Celebrity section. He even plays on the fact that he's become a meme in an advertisement for Broadband provider Pipex (viewable on their site). MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

i added the hoff. we should have a whole section on him, i can think of at least 5 me-mes about him which has gotta be a record. hes also got to be the only celeb who has really made a new career thanks to the viral nature of the net and his sheer crapness. --Gothicform 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Love Bees?

See Haunted Apiary - It was/is a viral marketing website for Halo 2 (the site www.ilovebees.com flashed in the trailer shown in cinemas). It was an alternate reality game with a lot of visitors. I don't know if it was widespread enough to be counted as a phenomenon. Comments? Suggestions?--James086 10:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Decline of Video Gaming

Isn't this a meme? It's a UGOplayer, and it's rather popular. It spread to Newgrounds, too.

Probably less of one than Cindy Margolis, who I just restored after you deleted again. Please discuss that here before deleting a third time. Also, please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ after them. Jay Maynard 22:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted hers because the mass controversy (see above), and I agreed she was just hamming it up.
i think if "ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny" is on then so should "The Decline of Video Gaming" --Nickecb 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceiling Cat

I added Ceiling Cat yesterday (albiet not logged in), not knowing of the original history of the meme, and how it originated here on Wikipedia as a joke article. It was quickly reverted. I have created a stub for it and have added it back in. Regardless of the origin of this meme, it is now a wide spread Internet meme, outside of Wikipedia. There are over 50,000 hits for the quoted string on google. The domain www.ceilingcat.com is registered for the sole purpose of displaying this picture. I don't know if the person running the domain was the originator or not.

Please at least discuss before reverting again. Gigs 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I can't get the stub it refers to to stick. There no reason to have a link here until the article for it is there. Gigs 21:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed its not there i hope they put it back up because i'd be interested in reading it.

[edit] What's the policy?

I was going back through the recent history and saw a number of deletes for entries because there was either no article or the entry contains "linkspam" (links to websites, rather than actual source of notability) I restored two, (well three, but the third was blatant vandalism by an anonymous IP) for which the links were sources verifying notability. That's what I thought was the established policy: if there is no parent article, establish notability by citing verification. But I thought after doing it, that I may be wrong. Can anyone lay it out for those of us who may have missed it? Thanks. Peace out. Wavy G 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where's lime cat?

I know there was a good article on lime cat on here somewhere but it seems to be gone. can someone tell me why? --Nickecb 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domo-Kun

Domo-kun should be included: Definitely an internet phenomenon.

domo kun is a mascot for a japanese tv station. i don't think it qualifies.

I assume he's talking about the "everytime you mastrubate a kitten dies." image that included Domo-Kun. Do a wiki search.

I came to this page since I couldn't quite remember his name (no hits for "Domoku"), so thanks for that! I guess it might be too much of an in-joke for Fark.com to be notable here, although at least one t-shirt vendor specialising in merchandising Internet and gamer memes offers this as a product. Kjetilho 17:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diet Coke and Mentos

It's all over the place. I don't know the source, though. 69.228.213.21 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N64 Kid

Does any one else think that n64 kid applies?

[edit] Eon8

When I type Eon8 into the search, it sends me right to List of Internet phenomena, even though eon8 does not appear once in the whole article. What happend to the eon8 article, and why does wikipedia direct me where the information I asked it for does not exist?


add it.

It was deleted and protedcted againtg recreation. It won't be added. --My old username 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Cena???

This is just a suggestion, but the negative hype on the internet that enveloped John Cena in a rather short amount of time (from his winning the title in March and being booed very badly within 6 months) warrants his including in this list (in my opinion, of course). Dele3344 17:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More websites to list

I've been online for several years now and I suggest the following websites to be posted in the list :

- NeoPets [2]

- Tooth Paste For Dinner [3]

- Odd Todd [4]

- Group Hug [5]

- Moon Lots For Sale [6]

- Safe T Rider [7]

- NYC Garbage [8]

- Wrecked Exotics [9]

- Drive Me Insane! [10]

The websites themselves should explain their purposes when visited, and are all very popular. If anyone feels that they should be added to the list of current sites, then be my guest.

Thanks, --Izcool 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screaming baby

A picture of a very unhappy baby, allegedly photoshopped by the father into vairous screaming people (I.E Hitler, Shrek, WWII soldier, Gene Simmons) Should this be added? 67.180.166.11 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Simon

Surely??

Non-notable. And don't call me Shirley. Wavy G 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Who? Jay Maynard 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Some techno musician who has video clips of his music on the Internet. His name was already on the list once and it was removed as non-notable. Wavy G

[edit] Formats for entries

If we can't come to an agreement about what is appropriate for inclusion on this page (believe me I've tried), could we at least come up with some sort of standard formatting for the entries? (If an entry can't even provide the basic information to fill the criteria, then it could be deleted as inappropriate.)

I suggest:

Name (only wikilinked if article is about the meme in some way) — Description. Indication of notability. Reference to original or copy of original source, if available. Reference to notability, if available.

So, using Henry Earl as a guide:

Henry Earl — A homeless African-American man from Kentucky, Earl became famous primarily because of his extensive police record, mostly for non-violent alcohol-related offenses, and the subsequent often humorous and widely varied mug shots. Henry has made numerous talk show appearances and has been featured in national and international media venues, including MSNBC, the UK Sunday Mail, and Jimmy Kimmel Live.
Official Henry Earl Fan-Site
Newsweek web exclusive coverage

So, just to tick off the categories:

Name — Henry Earl, wiki-linked because the article is about the meme
Description — A homeless African-American man from Kentucky, Earl became famous primarily because of his extensive police record, mostly for non-violent alcohol-related offenses, and the subsequent often humorous and widely varied mug shots.
Notability — Henry has made numerous talk show appearances and has been featured in national and international media venues, including MSNBC, the UK Sunday Mail, and Jimmy Kimmel Live.
Original source — Official Henry Earl Fan-Site is propbably better than the original police site, because sites like these popularized Earl.
Reference to notability — Newsweek web exclusive coverage is at a notable, high-traffic website.

Thoughts? --Hamiltonian 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That really sounds like the way to go. It would definitely make the article look a lot better, although going through the entire article and changing every entry would be brutally painstaking (unless you've got some massive attrition in mind). Wavy G 16:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be essentially "attrition if unable to fit the criteria", as in if an entry can't meet three or four of the different boxes (i.e. nothing distinguishes it as being important), then it has to go, as unencyclopedic. --Hamiltonian 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we remove some of these?

I don't think we should drop some becuase they got old, but some did get removed (e.g: Old Grandma Hardcore) Are there anymore that should be removed? The velociraptor 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Internet is for Porn?

Grab your dick and double click! Come on. A classic. -b 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It was only a fad on YTMND, so it does not count, I think. Ask wavy G. 4.246.36.75 18:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why me? Wavy G 18:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, you're a lord of this domain. Or something. And I don't think it was just a fad. It's realitively new, but a classic! -b 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm known far and wide for ruthlessly and unapologetically deleting bad edits, but I don't know about being "lord" of this domain. Anyway, the "Internet is for Porn" thing was on the list for the longest time, and apparently it's not any more. I don't know what happened but my guess is that it was removed due to lack of source. Wavy G 20:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmk. I'll try to dig up something. That said, the current list is bloated. And I hate to add to it. -b 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, you wouldn't really be adding to it. You'd just be putting something back. Wavy G 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
True, dat. No wonder you're lord of these lands. -b 23:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I generally like to edit Wikipedia holding a sceptor and wearing a crown. Wavy G 02:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be best to explain how a song from a Broadway musical classifies a legitimate internet phenomenon. --Hamiltonian 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well, I don't know about all that. I was just telling my friend -b here that it used to be on the list and now it's not. He was going to try to find some source of notability. Is it not a true phenomenon? I don't know much about it, really. But I think I have heard it, (on the Internet), and seen numerous animations made for it. Maybe you could explain better to Mister -b the reasoning for its initial removal. Wavy G 03:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And I am so curious. Sure, it's nothing compared to the Star Wars kid, but it is a classic. Everyone's heard of it. -b 03:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I removed it, but I can't be exactly sure. But if I did my reasoning would be that (a) it did not originate from the internet - it was from a Tony award-winning Broadway musical that is still running (hardly obscure) and (b) there was no real assertion of notability. Also, if something is popular off of the internet and becomes popular on the internet, then how is that an internet phenomenon? I mean, seriously, if that's the definition of an internet phenomenon (things that are popular on the internet), we need to include almost everything in the known world. CNN is a popular TV station. CNN.com is a popular website. Is CNN an internet phenomenon, worthy of inclusion? Star Trek is a popular TV show. Star Trek is often discussed on the internet. Is Star Trek an internet phenomenon, worthy of inclusion? Politics is a human phenomenon that has been occuring for thousands of years. The internet is often used for political ends. Is politics an internet phenomenon, worthy of inclusion? I'm not being facetious. I think this article could be interesting, informative and encylcopedic. Just now as it is now, and not by including everything under an amorphous definition. I could always be wrong, though. --Hamiltonian 15:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snakes on a plane

That "phenomena" should really be deleted as it's obviously some promotional entry by the movie's producers.

It was a big thing though. -b 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not, as I'm the one who added it, and I live in philadelphia and have nothing to do with any movie studios, and I'm also a frequent wikipedia contributor, whereas you're an anonymous user with no edit history. The entry has also been there for the better part of a year with no objection from any other frequent editors of this article. Elijya 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, regardless if movie producers actually did hype this up and create their own web phenomenon (not even remotely likely anyway, but just for argument's sake), it doesn't change the fact that it is a phenomenon. This is the same argument about Cindy Margolis: that she shouldn't be on the list because she herself made up the "fact" about her being the most downloaded woman on the Internet, or whatever. So she lied. And she subsequently became famous in the process. Okay, so now we should undo something that has already happened, or not acknowledge a fact. I just have a hard time getting my head around the mentality of some of these people sometimes. Okay, that's all. Wavy G 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (Lord of the domain)
Okay, so now after a second glance, I see what this person was saying; that the movie producers added this entry here to promote the film. I misunderstood. So, yeah. In response to that: No, you're wrong; it IS a true Internet phenomenon, and that's why it's listed here. Do some research. Okay, now I'm done. OUTIE 5000. Peace. Wavy G 01:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things should I add?

1) Diet coke and Mentos, should I add it? 2) Does Garry's Mod count as a Meme? 3) Is there a wildy visited site (other than MySpace, Yahoo, EBaum, and YouTube) that should be added?

I'm going to add the EBaum attack in which people who were angry over a "stolen" (it's not stolen ad eBaum didn't steal it nor condone it: someone just sent it in without permission and credit, which most nubs on the internets want) YTMND, and users for all the popular sites spammed it up on the eBaums forums and hacked the site, and eBaum members vis-a-vis counter-attacking the, uh, attacking sites. This fine?

NOTE: Re-added the Limecat and Fatmouse entries, and added the Hasselhoff in images. The velociraptor 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another addition from the flaming raptor.

IFilm has a section entirely devoted to viral videos. I'll look it up to-morrow, but there are two that stand out: Maccaron Chaccaron (Yes, this was a YTMND, but like "The Internet is for Porn" and Moskau, this broke out), and Homophobic teacher (supposed video of a professor, I think, balling out a student and calls the student a faggot). I'm adding the former, but should I add the latter? The velociraptor 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lonelygirl115

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-09-13-lonelygirl15-confession_x.htm?csp=27

Looks like a meme...

[edit] Chubby Asian Kid

Unfortunately I don't know his name, but I think he's some kind of "legend" on the internet. Probably no other face has been photoshoped into as many pictures as his.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, I mean this guy: Asian kid

In my opinion he's definitely worth an entry in this list.

Opinions aside, can you provide a source of notability? I have seen this this kid all over too, but without a source, it will be considered original research. Wavy G 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular websites are not internet phenomena

A popular website is not an internet phenomenon. For instance, just imagine we had a List of television phenmonena article. Would a popular TV show be a television phenomenon? No. It would be a television program. So, I'm going to cull all the things that are just websites. --Hamiltonian 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider Scott Sharkey. He's got some infamy as far as gaming crticism goes. Maybe not as popular as OldManMurray, but if SeanBaby is up there, Sharkey should go there. Inmatarian 00:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. reverting them: The Best Page in the Universe, eBaum, et cetera are all well known enough to be considered a meme. 4.246.39.158 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
How are these websites memes? I am not disputing their popularity. I am disputing their appropriateness for inclusion on this specific page. --Hamiltonian 02:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Someome's angry. They're appropriate to be meme. 4.246.42.7 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not angry. I'm seriously curious how they are appropriate to be a meme. --Hamiltonian 04:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sharkey is the one behind a lot of parodies, such as the Oregon Trail parody, the City of Heroes League of Incredible Bastards (eg. CEO of Earth), and such. He's been around as long as Seanbaby, which is why I think he's notable. It surprises me that he doesn't have a wiki article about himself, but he has always been resistant to popularity. Inmatarian 01:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Norris and the Celebrity section

Shouldn't Chuck Norris and Mr. T be listed under Celebrities, rather than under "Text-based Memes"? Sure, the "facts" meme specifically may be text-based, but the overall phenomenon goes well beyond that into images, flash videos, you name it... If they need to have a specific "meme" associated with them to be listed, then I'm not sure I understand the point of the Celebrities section as surely every specific meme will fall into one of the other categories. --66.18.231.70 20:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croyt's Anger/Rage

I've added two more to the videos section. If it does not belong there, tell me, redo it or move it. Tell me in advance first. But I must ask, has anyone actually seen those videos? Icebyrd 3:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have. I think they might be well known, but I have to look around. Maybe they aren't, so ask Hamil or Wavy G. The velociraptor 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who keeps deleting memes?

Just because they originated from another country or were very old doesn't mean they aren't memes.

[edit] "We come in peace"

I think We come in peace should be here, too ("Animation-based"). --mihi 10:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Little Superstar"

Definitely a new meme, needs a lot of research to determine its origin and details regarding it. In short, "Little Superstar" refers to a video going around featuring an Indian midget (I'm not using the term in a derogatory sense, he does indeed have the proportions which qualify for a "midget"). "Little Superstar" can be found all over Youtube using that in the search function. It appears to be from an Indian TV series. "Little Superstar" has already appeared on TV in USA on news shows that often feature internet meme clips such as "Scarborough Country" and "Countdown with Keith Olbermann."

I would add it to the list myself but I don't know where the video FIRST appeared, nor do I know from what show they originated.

[edit] "K-fee"

I don't think K-fee deserves to be kept on the list, seeing as we already have "prank flashes" on there, which covers the screamer category. -Euphoric1

[edit] memecruft

New popular flash animations and new passed-around-the-net images and avatars occur on the net daily. At this rate, this idiotic list of minutiae (most of which matter only to a very select and small cult following) will exceed size limits for a Wikipedia article very, very soon. What then? wikipediatrix 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for stopping by. It's always nice to hear some feedback. Wavy G 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
My question was not a rhetorical one. wikipediatrix 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The tone of your question shows you're not particularly interested in helping make it better, just slamming the article as a whole. This does not come as a surprise, given your history in this regard. If you had not started out by calling it an "idiotic list of minutiae", you might have gotten a straight answer. Jay Maynard 01:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I gave my opinion of the article, just as you see fit to give your opinion of me, despite the incivility of it. Insulting me as a comeback for me insulting this article is uncalled for. wikipediatrix 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your post was itself incivil. My post was quite civil; I used no pejoratives or other inflammatory words. I merely pointed out facts. If you wish civility and respect, you should show it...and my opinion is based on more than this one article and your involvement in it. Jay Maynard 11:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There you go again, talking about me instead of the article. I can't think of any reason why I should care what your personal opinion of me is, but I do know this isn't the place for you to vent about it. This page is strictly for discussing the article. If you think I was uncivil to anyone by referring to this article as "idiotic", hey, file a complaint. wikipediatrix 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You can't duck the issue by claiming your incivility was aimed at the article; that merely dodges the fact that you were attacking the people who have, collectively, made it what it is today. Next time, try honey instead of vinegar; it might work better. Jay Maynard 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what her comment (or her "question," as she called it) was supposed to accomplish anyway. If she disagrees with the content, perhaps she needs to take it to AFD (again?!). If she is only attempting to start a flamewar, there are other media aside from Wikipedia she would be better suited (Do I see a nickname change of "Usenetrix" in her future?). Wavy G 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already attempted to have the article deleted. Okay, forget that I called the article idiotic if that offends you. My question, again, is how can we hope to maintain an article that keeps track of all these goofy (can I say goofy?) flash animations and memes that get ten minutes of net-fame, when the article is sure to exceed size limitations soon? wikipediatrix 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the general consensus was: if a meme listed here has its own article, it is obviously notable and should be here (Something has to be notable to have an article about it, and if the reason the subject is notable is that it is an "Internet phenomenon," it should be listed here), or if the meme does not have its own article, but has been cited as being an Internet phenomenon by a reputable third-party source, it should be listed here (and, hopefully, referenced). Not everything on the list is referenced, but then again, not everything on the list is an Internet phenomenon. That doesn't mean the article shouldn't exist (Well, in my book, that is. You may feel differently). Wavy G 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That still doesn't answer my question: what do we do when the article gets too long? wikipediatrix 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would provide a table or shorten the length to make it concise. Oh, and Mr. Maynard, you might wanna refrain from the use of personal attacks, since I didn't like your attitude towards Wikipediatrix, just to give you the heads up. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider my comments to have been a personal attack. Jay Maynard 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Where? I've read Jay's response over and over and I can't seem to find any personal attack. If you're referring to his "given your history in this regard" comment, Wikipediatrix does have a history of voicing negative opinions on this article. Wavy G 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for establishing Criteria for inclusion

It is apparent that this article is quickly becoming filled with references to phenomena of questionable importance.

We need to establish proper criteria, and enforce compliance with these criteria, for example a phenomena must either have been popular on at least three well-visited sites, or if the phenomena is a webpage, proof of how many hits it had over a duration of time. Any other proposals? Sfacets 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another good criteria is if it has appeared in a major news article, like on cnn. MightyAtom 03:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No doubt, however it's unlikely an internet meme will make it on CNN. Other ideas would be
  • More than a certain number of hits (use Alexa for eg.)
  • Number of results from search engines

...at the moment this article is a joke.

Sfacets 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Those both sound like good criteria. We should definitely have something numerical, some standard that can be held. What do you suggest for numbers? MightyAtom 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be surprised if Internet memes make it to mass media, like network TV. As for numerical criteria, those aren't particularly reliable; Google page counts, in particular, have been shown to be quite variable. Jay Maynard 01:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
So what do you recommend? Right now it is just chaos, with people using the article in an attempt to promote themselves. Even if things like google aren't perfect, they are better than no standard at all. MightyAtom 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention.

YTMNDs, 4Chan memes, SA memes, and et cetera can only be considered so if many people on the internet have heard about it.

And how do you intend to count those people, oh nonsigner of comments? Elijya 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
ITS OVER NINE-THOUSAND!!! no, right? Too early, probably. I guess we gotta spread it if we want it to be here.EAB 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I admit, I have no idea what the above comment is refering too...MightyAtom 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's plainly obvious: He's saying there are over NINE THOUSAND of whatever he is talking about, although it needs to be "spread" if they want it to be here. Come on, read between the lines! Wavy G 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Nine thousand refers to a scouter reading from Dragon Ball Z. Goku's power level was (at the time) over NINE THOOOUUUSSAAANNDDD!?

[edit] We seriously need a check on memes.

I'm tired of edit wars, things getting deleted because they're supposedly not memes (when they are), so we should set a certain rule to make it meme-ish, like a certain number a views or if it's widely used. 67.174.242.227 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Things are not getting deleted because someone "thinks" they aren't memes; they are getting deleted because they are unsourced. Try to cite sources and don't take things so personally. Wavy G 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Masaki Sumitani an Internet phenomena?

Does Masaki Sumitani really qualify as an internet phenomena? He is just a succesful comedian, and the internet had nothing to do with his success. Sure, you can watch his videos on Youtube, but you can also watch Richard Pryor on Youtube, which doesn't make him an Internet phenomena. If the internet was his primary means of being exposed to US audiences, the same can be said for any number of anime/J-Pop/J-etc....but they are not of the internet. Any comments, or I am going to delete this one. MightyAtom 06:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Here, a lot of people have heard of HG. I think he's popular here, but not in Nippon. anyone says otherwise, then... The velociraptor 02:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhh...actually, he is probably THE most famous and popular comedian in Japan, and has been for the past several years. Which is why listing him as an "internet phenomena" is odd. So...no votes against. I will wait a bit, then de-list him.MightyAtom 03:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright. I'll try and scrape anything up for his meme-ish. The velociraptor 04:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan owns Vader

I don't know if this was viral, but there are a lot of videos of it on YouTube. It's three japanese policemen versus Darth Vader (all of them actors, of corse). Vader force-disarms one of the policemen, only to get slapped and arrested. I'll add it for now, if anyone says it's not, feel free to remove. The velociraptor 04:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just delete the whole thing, its all wrong anyways

Theres a lot wrong with this article and it highlights what is wrong with wikipedia. First off, Internet "meme" is a made up name. There was already a word for this phenomena: "fad". I have never heard this term used until someone used it, then made it a link that leads to this article. This term comes off as the creation of one individual that somehow wikipedia accepted, and then for some reason other people accepted simply because wikipedia did. Secondly, 90% of this stuff has never been an internet fad. Just because 2 measly websites make a reference to some piece of anime you hold dearly, doesnt make it an internet fad. In fact, I dont think anime has ever been part of an internet fad (at least not in English). Finally, we dont really know whats an internet fad in other languages / cultures. One individual saying "oh yeah I can read that and they're all into this" isn't a reliable source. How many foreign people get false impressions on other cultures? All the time.

Again, just delete this article. 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How about... no? The velociraptor 18:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
"Meme" has been around for decades, Richard Dawkins coined the term in his 1976 work "The Selfish Gene" It was created as a synergy of the word "mimic" and "gene." It is different to the word "fad" because a fad can come from a central location, and remains static, ie: the latest kids action figure, from a television program. A meme, like a gene is organic, it can evolve and is spread like a virus, from person to person eg: "All your base" internet meme has been passed on and evolved into dozens of permutations. gleep 02:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limecat

Limecat needs to be on this list; the image far better known than many other so-called "phenomena" on this list. Searching for "Limecat" returns 37,000 pages. Compare:

  • Icy Hot Stuntaz: 16,600
  • Aaron Proctor: 615
  • Anton Maiden: 15,200
  • Ha! Ha! guy: 1,480
  • Mustard Man: 32,000
  • Fatmouse: 18,200
  • Tubcat: 913
  • TRON guy: 33,500 (especially surprising—I would have expected TRON guy to be more "popular" than Limecat)

And this is just a random selection. Honestly, I was surprised to discover that Limecat wasn't already on this list. I'm not sure why it's been blocked to prevent re-creating the article itself, but if that's a problem, it doesn't necessarily need to be a link, just the bolded text itself. Chayama 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I deleted the last limecat entry on the basis of it being blocked, I agree with Chayama. Actually, of that list, limecat is the only one I have actually heard of outside of the context of this list. Anyone know why limecat was blocked? MightyAtom 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It was listed here at one time. It was apparently deemed not important enough to have its own article (it's been blocked from recreation because it has been recreated so much), but I think Limecat could easily be listed among the many other images here, since it is so popular. Wavy G 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I won't argue; if the consensus here is that it should be listed, list it. I'd removed it just because of the deleted and protected article, in line with other recent decisions of the same nature, but I also believe that phenomena don't have to be notable enough to rate their own article to be listed here. Jay Maynard 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think "notable enough to rate their own article" should be a key criteria to being listed here. Just my opinion but...at any rate, limecat is far more notable than "mustard guy" or some of the others on that list...Either limecat makes the cut, or the others don't and should be de-listed.MightyAtom 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, no. Some have spread virally across the internets, let me check. The velociraptor 03:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do a barrel roll!

It's both popular on 4chan and YTMND, yes?EAB 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Link? Reference? Appeared in a news source? MightyAtom 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thedrunkendialer.com

I am wondering of this site could be considered an internet phenomena or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $100 via PayPal to the individual who leaves him he best Drunk dialing message on his voicemail.
I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my area.
I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…
  • Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Would this apply?)

Thanks, 69.167.102.181


[edit] Retarded Animal Babies

First of all, why was the Retarded Animal Babies article deleted in the first place? If Wiki can have an article on Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi and Neurotically Yours, than why not RAB?

Second, who removed it's mentioning from this page? Lord Lonic

Someone shoud put in something for, "Oh Hi, I upgraded your RAM."

Retarded Animal Babies should definetly be readded

[edit] Cloud song

The cloud song from deviantart should be added. [11]

[edit] Civil War: I'm With Him

Should the recent craze of creating Marvel "Civil War" signature banner parodies be added here? linky dinky

[edit] Slap a Spice Girl

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the old Shockwave game "Slap a Spice Girl" from early 1997!

http://www.urban75.com/Punch/spicebelt.html is sadly all that's left of it. Bold text

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternet_phenomenon_Arc-Nov2006_e178.html"