Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HA! HA! guy

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Defaulting to keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HA! HA! guy

This page was created after its first incarnation Ha ha guy was nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ha ha guy). As most of the delete votes in that initial discussion are proposing that the article is un-noteworthy I feel it right that this clone of the original article is also proposed for deletion. My vote is delete. Francs2000 | Talk 22:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this one has pictures, but is still about an unencyclopedic topic; just some stuff that happened on a forum. Really, it shouldn't be necessary to do a second VFD, because this was a duplicate article, but here we are. CDC (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not a "clone" of the article. It gives a history and everything. I didn't know it began on the SomethingAwful forums. I wouldn't know that if it was deleted. Also see here. Also, they were created by two different people. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I now feel confident both articles should be handled the same way -- if this phenomena of cliche pictures is encyclopedic, then write about that in an appropriately titled article, but this seems to just be a non-notable intricacy of the barely notable forum site Fark.com which is something that should not expand into a whole article on its own, because people just would not look for something like this in an ecyclopedia. (See also, my notes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ha ha guy). --Mysidia 23:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Kill this when you kill All your base are belong to us. Not every meme deserve to live, but this one seems to have grown enough that it might qualify. - Chairboy 23:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep An Internet phenomenon or meme is encyclopedic. Quoting Wikipedia policy on importance: "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true: 1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." There are clearly more than 500 people interested! ([1]) ArcTheLad 23:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We're discussing this because a related VfD is in play (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ha ha guy). IMO the related VfD should result in a redirect, and this should be kept, because this article is already encyclopedic and interesting, and because of the likelihood this will be an even more encyclopedic article. After all, we've VfDd and kept an article about a woman who's only encyclopedic accomplishment in life was to climb mt everest in a skirt and wrote a book about it. Quaker guy has more mileage, ISTM. Flawiki 00:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Frances is a douchebag. Then again, so are Drew Curtis and Jeff, the two head honchos behind fark.com, so it's not like fark users aren't used to that sort of thing. Anyway, as I've said before -- when we use fark, we try to forget about its many, many flaws (such as the unfair deletions, paying to be linked on the main page, the superiority complexes of TotalFarkers, etc.). Some of what helps us forget are the funny cliches and articles that appear. The "Ha Ha" guy is one of those cliches. It's almost like someone has to die of cancer and the article linked to the main page for the admins and moderators -- as well as Fark posters both lite and TF -- to not be douchebags. When you attack the items used from the site, you attack its users as well. Most think its funny, and most think it is relevant. If you are going to delete it, and I don't think you should, then at least link the stupid thing to fark.com which you SHOULD have done in the first place. Which makes me think, if you are going to link it to fark.com, and have it listed as being relevant to the site, wouldn't it need its own entry to explain WHY it's there in the first place? Granted, Admiral Ackbar is listed due to Star Wars. But he has additional significance as it relates to Fark.com. It's really a fine line here, but why make such a big deal out of it? When it comes down to it, it's just an image, and you guys at Wikipedia aren't exactly the most superior life forms on the Internet, either. Nobody is really going to notice this after it calms down, and now that it's one day later after one of the Fark admins went off his ritalin and all but demanded that Fark posters who liked the image stopped using it, things ARE beginning to calm down a bit. At least, that's the way it seems to me. --68.158.111.157 01:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and protect against recreation fork to avoid VfD. -Splash 01:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't mean it'll win the Miss America contest, and prettying up the Ha ha guy article doesn't make it any more encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• HA! HA! I'm using the delete button! Note to article creator: this meme is popular on imageboards too. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 02:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article indeed seems to be much more informative than the original "Ha Ha Guy" article. I have done a lot of reading on what does and does not constitute a valid Wikipedia article. Everything I have read so far suggests that the article is completely legit. These internet memes are fascinating and I see no reason whatever to remove them. There are no space constraints - as previously mentioned, this is not a paper encyclopedia! Furthermore, the arrogance of those that seek to remove the page is disgusting to me. If the article is not "noteworthy" to you, simply don't read about it. I find lots of stuff in the Chinese language Wikipedia to be "not noteworthy", yet I am not parading around trying to remove the content. I think Wikipedia was built for articles like this in mind. --Digizen 02:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Contrary to the dismissive sniffing above, this is a useful article. I myself searched here for HA! HA! Guy several times during the course of his meteoric rise to fame/infamy -- to no avail. Only today did I finally find something with useful information -- history and origin, in my case. I know there are many people curious about just where this came from, and finding answers is what an encyclopedia is for -- right? --Atario 05:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't mind the Fark people.. it is a real thing. Rhobite 05:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ha ha. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are some Internet memes that are noteworthy enough to keep, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 11:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The notoriety bar is rather low on Category:Internet memes as it stands, and this far exceeds a lot of them. Also, there's certainly some interesting implications with this being the first memorable template-based user-generated graphic thingo, and the whole linguistic implications of thousands of people using an image as a conversational medium. -The Tom 14:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all nn internet memes. --Scimitar ^parley 14:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per ArcTheLad, satisfies Wikipedia:Importance, and is a well written/formatted article to boot. --TheMidnighters 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep please it seems like a notable meme to me Yuckfoo 17:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep its ranged out from fark, just look around friendster or myspace, or any imageboards.
  • Kingdead42 (talk · contribs)'s only edit to date
• Keep Notable. Google is behind on this on. The # of hits on this will go way up once google does some reindexing. Ravedave 19:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 228 Google hits -- no matter how far behind Google may be, that is awful for an "internet phenomenon." Xoloz 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Determining worthiness by Google rank is rediculous. "HA! HA! Guy" goes by dozens of different names. Noclip 19:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a big enough meme. Darobsta 11:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not "encyclopedic?" There's *tons* of stuff on Wikipedia that doesn't fit in traditional encyclopedias. I thought that was a major selling point of this site. If I you don't want to brush up against memes and barely-useful entries, go buy the Britanica. I would at least hold off until we see if this goes much further - if it hits "All Your Base" level, it's going to have an entry whether people like it or not, and this one's a pretty good entry. : BankyEdwards 02:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, take a swing by the Internet memes page and check out how many have their own Wiki entries. Mostly stuff I've never heard of, and don't find that funny. Should they all be deleted? C'mon, lighten up.  : BankyEdwards 02:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some internet memes are noteworthy, this isn't. Garrett^Talk 06:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But clean up the links. There shouldn't be duplicates (ie. Ha ha guy) I gained something from this article. I was curious as to the origins of the image in forums I visit and this provided me the information I was looking for. Wynler 16:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's now part of the Internet phenomenons, for better or worse. Rborek 23:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.The whole point isn't just HA!HA! guy, but the very real phenomenon around it as it migrated from SA to TF and - I'm sure - elsewhere. This page should stand on those merits and not on those of an earlier version, which might or might not have reflected this. Besides, if every "non-encyclopedic" concept were wiped from Wikipedia, it would be as marketable as yesterday's newspaper. Ceremony1968 01:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User's 3rd edit outside their user page and the article itself -- Francs2000 | Talk 08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.It's a record-setting article on Fark. Who cares? --unsigned vote by 65.37.61.237 (talk · contribs), user's 4th edit.
• Delete The Ha ha guy? Ugh. Get rid of this. --unsigned vote by 68.99.89.177 (talk · contribs), user's 2nd edit.

• Keep If you want formality, look to brittanica or a more formal source. Makenji-san
• Strong keep. I was looking for this information awhile ago, and was disappointed that he didn't have an article. I even put up an article request for it, not knowing that the article already existed. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been interested in this topic. -- DocSigma 14:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After seeing this image on many fark threads, I was curious as to where it came from. I looked up the article for fark, followed the link to this article, and learned all I wanted to know. My vote is to keep the HA! HA! guy article, and make Ha ha guy a redirect to it. -- ssj4android
• HA! HA! I vote to Keep --unsigned vote by 205.188.116.138 (talk · contribs), user's 352nd edit.
• Strong Keep! Well written article on something seen every day by thousands of people --unsigned vote by 67.173.204.34 (talk · contribs), user's 1st edit.
• Keep. I learned about the history of this phenomenon from the article. Isn't that what wikipedia is for? --unsigned vote by 64.9.54.212 (talk · contribs), user's 1st edit.
• Move to Ha! Ha! I'm using the Internet!!1, which is most defninitely an internet phenomenon if the picture itself isn't. Noclip 19:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (First edit on Wikipedia, check my account on Wikinews for tons of edits)
• Keep. Wiki has dozens of this kind of article that have all been kept. This is no different, and I think part of Wiki's job is to document internet culture--because where else would I look up the GNAA?--TexasDex 03:14, August 3, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.