Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Like Monkeys

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 debate was delete —Whouk (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Like Monkeys

Speedied as patent nonsense and undeleted after being sent to deletion review. See the discussion - some pointed out that it was non-notable, while the nominator thought it was a notable Internet Phenomenon. RN 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic in any way. "very little point other than comedic value" and not much of that. Fan1967 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article may have taken some time to show up since it was just recently reinstated. Try refreshing. - Tomodachigai
• Keep or merge. I continue to contend that there is some notability in the article. First, I believe it meets the standards in WP:WEB for notabilty under the clause:

Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

And while I can make no judgements to the triviality or not of the sites it's contained on. There are certanly multiple publications of the I Like Monkeys peom (existing on at least 100 separate websites). Which also makes it source independent. While there may not be enough content to qualify for a article of it's own, I believe it desurves a place in the Internet Phenomenon article at the very least. - Tomodachigai

• Comment If it's to be kept as an internet phenomenon, it's going to need a lot better citation than "Several blogs and forums." - Fan1967 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Not enough possible content for an article on this. At most, a mention in another article. Wickethewok 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not even a mention somewhere else is needed, and it definitely should not be listed anywhere in the vicinity of the Internet phenomenon page. There's no background info on the poem (the article itself claims nobody knows who wrote it). I Googled the first three sentences of the poem (in quotes, of course), and got 75 Google hits, all of which were on blogs. No reliable sources have ever referenced it. In short, there's no notability here at all. -- Kicking222 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's not a phenomenon yet; it borderlines on a weblog of vandalism - Richardcavell 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem isn't that it's not a phenomenon yet, it's that it was a phenomenon in the 1990's and it's popularity is winding down (see Internet Phenomenon for more information on how they work)
• Comment. To me, the goal of an encyclopedia is to answer the questions "What is it?" and "Where did it come from?". The article answers both of these questions. Even if the answer to the latter is "No one knows". What a delete suggests is that this article not only has no value, but that, because of it's existance, it actually detracts from the Wikipedia. I created this article because I myself wondered those very questions, and I must admit, I was somewhat surprized when the article didn't exist. So I did the research, and found the answers myself. Maybe not the ones I wanted, but the only answers availaible. Then I figured I'd put that research to use, so that not only could I help others looking for the same answers that I was. But also, add to a part of the Wikipedia where it was lacking.

The article wasn't even given a fair chance for survival, having been speedy deleted almost as soon as it was created. It was originally thought to be "nonsense" or a "test page". Then the article had to go through the undeletion process, to finally arrive here at AfD. With only one contributer (myself), and a few hours of live time, of course it's small and undeveloped. All I ask is that you give this article a chance. Thank you. - Tomodachigai

This is it, Tomo. This is the chance. I admit I did not support its restoration on the DRV, but only because I knew what the result would be (hint: look at the above votes). They didn't vote "delete" because it's small and undeveloped; they voted for deletion because there is no potential for it to grow, or to develop. All "I like monkeys" is is a funny story. There are lots of them. It was briefly popular about 6-10 years ago, but it never rose to an Internet phenomenon like "All your base are belong to us" did. The latter was featured in a major syndicated comic strip, without further explanation (thus showing that Bill Amend thought a good number of his readers would get it); the former is ... just a funny story. (Not even all that funny, in my opinion, but to each his own.) The question is, how does this help the encyclopedia? What useful information could possibly be written about this story that cannot be divined by simply reading the story itself? "No one knows who wrote it" is not useful, because it's not true; someone knows. Unless some external source has written something about this story, there's no encyclopedic content that can possibly be added to this article. It may be unfortunate, but that's the grim reality. Powers 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• merge and redirect to Internet phenomenon, it is seemingly a good example of a meme from the early days of the Internet (don't judge it by today's standards). Thryduulf 10:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Not notable now, not notable in the 1990s. (If merged into Internet phenomenon, move redirect to I Like Monkeys (internet phenomenon), and delete resulting double redirect. It's misleading even if accurate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Starionwolf 05:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable nonsense JohnM4402 01:19, 29 May 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.