Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I LIEK MILK!!!!!!!! 2

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 of the discussion was BA-L333333TED!. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I LIEK MILK!!!!!!!!

There's absolutely nothing notable about this site. It was some minor net meme many years ago and now seems utterly forgotten. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, not a compendium of every little stupid site someone put online. --Cyde↔Weys 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, I don't liek unnotable krap (Alexa gives me >3,000,000 for the actual site, the revival does not start here). --DaveG12345 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ephemera past its sell-by date. Just zis Guy you know? 17:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails my exclamation-point test. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Too many exclamation marks are a bad thing!) -- Alias Flood 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This article was previously nominated in January and was kept with No Consensus. The previous AfD discussion is here. Herostratus 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The previous AfD had quite a few Keep votes. This may have been influence partly by the first commenter in the previous AfD, who noted 19,000 Google hits on the phrase; I get 274 unique hits, so one of us is doing something wrong. It may meet WP:MEMES. Herostratus 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It sounds like he didn't quote the phrase properly in the search. Also, note that WP:MEMES is merely a proposed guideline and it has a significant number of detractors (myself included) who think that it sets the bar for inclusion in the encyclopedia far too low. --Cyde↔Weys 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, reviewing WP:MEMES, maybe it's not as bad as I thought. The only guideline for notability is "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in reliable sources independent of the meme itself". There's no way in hell this meme meets that guideline. Maybe, maybe, it was written up in a newspaper, but it wouldn't have been anything but a fluff piece, and thus trivial. --Cyde↔Weys 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• DELEET!!!!!!!!! Non-notable, has already been forgotten, no cultural impact of any sort. GassyGuy 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Who the heck would make an article like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs)
• Delete hopelessly unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Or shall we just renominate any article we dislike for AfD ad infinitum until it finally gets deleted? dryguy 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To be fair, the previous AfD discussion was 5 1/2 months ago. I'm also against re-nominating articles, but not if the previous vote, which occurred a somewhat long time ago, was a "no consensus". -- Kicking222 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see this ever being notable nor meeting WP:MEME. -- Kicking222 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable site. --musicpvm 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per before. Notable internet meme, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Who will want to know about this in 10 years? --Planetary

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.