Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolrus (2nd nomination)

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 was I can has redirected this to image macro. No real sourcing for this, nowhere near the notability of lolcat which is marginal, and Minazo will almost certainly be deleted. ELIMINATORJR 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lolrus

Lolrus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A lolrus is a lolcat, only with Walruses. Has none of the references or proof of notability that lolcat has, and that's saying something. Only sources relate to the identity of the animal in the original photo. Previous nom was in May 2004; the deleted revisions are no longer available, but it looks as though the old page was likely unrelated. -- Vary | Talk 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Lolcat (or bucket, one of the two - probably the former works better) - this meme is just one part of the whole lolanimal thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article -- this article provides information explaining a particular meme, its origin, and historical background only relevant to this meme and its relationship to other lol-memes and historical events, namely the elephant seal Minazo and his death in 2006.Aharon 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Is it can be deletz tiem now plz? No real sources, no indication of significance. Even if these were present, a mention at List of Internet phenomena would be sufficient. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lolcat as per above. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 05:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if we are just merge and keep the content anyway, whats the point of deleting it in the first place? - Fosnez 07:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because then it wouldn't be a proper merge. The point of merging is to salvage small amounts of content from articles that shouldn't exist in their own right. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• I can has redirect pleez? To lolcat ok? Few reliable secondary sources independent of teh subject = ROFLCOPTER Eleland 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• NEEDS MOAR RELIABLE SOURCEZ. Redirect (to lolcat). Italia^vivi 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Aharon and not paper Cleanup, get some sources. expand. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Any suggestion where to find sources, or should we fabricate a few? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• The reason why lolrus should not be merged with lolcat is because both lolcat and lolrus are two separate examples of an image macro. In other words, the image macro article is the parent, and both lolrus and lolcat are its children. I can find some more sources, no problem. Another alternative is to create a new article for Minazo, the elephant seal that was the source of the lolrus image macro, and add the relevant lolrus information there. Information under lolcat is only relelvant as another example of an image macro similar in a way to lolcat. I still think we should keep the article though. the lolrus meme and the lolrus saga needs explaining as it is now separate from lolcat.Aharon 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'd appreciate a little feedback on which section needs more sources. The sections I added on the origin of the meme have sources.Aharon 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've done some editing to the page, such that the sources are clearly identified as references in a references section.Aharon 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to encourage you to strike out one or the other of your bolded comments. [1] [2] While editors may make as many comments as they like in an afd, they can only make one bolded recommendation, and adding more than that can be considered vote stacking seen as an attempt to skew the discussion in your favor. Thanks.

I do see that you've created a reference section, but there are still no reliable sources for the phenomenon itself (no, I'm afraid Icanhascheezeburger and the like aren't going to work for our purposes.) As for creating an article on the seal in the original photo (which I see you've already done, but never mind,) you should probably take the time to read through the notability guidelines. We look for reliable sources first, because without them we can't even begin to judge whether or not an article should stay on wikipedia, but that's not the only thing an article needs to survive an afd. -- Vary | Talk 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback and the tip concerning bolded comments -- I apologize and appreciate the correction. Not certain why icanhascheezburger would not be considered a reliable source since it is at the epicenter of the lolrus (and of course, lolcat) phenomena. That site is a relevant source for this article. I'd also add that I am not the sole author of this article. This afd only hit while I was editing and adding to the article.Aharon 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The sourcing appears adequate, here. • Lawrence Cohen 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which sources do you think allow the article to pass WP:WEB? That is, which of the sources are both reliable and feature lolruses as the primary subject? -- Vary | Talk 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:WEB: *Notability "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception... (Notable) content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Lolrus is now the subject of innumerable blog posts, as well as having been referenced in an article in Time Magazine (albert the same article that desribed the lolcat phenomena). While the blog posts may not be considered "reliable sources", the Time Magazine article itself had factual errors (e.g. referring to the lolrus as a walrus instead of as an elephant seal). Right now, this article is the probably the single best source of accurate information on the lolrus on the Internet. Should this article first be published outside wikipedia so that it can then be referenced in a wikipedia article as a reliable source? Obviously (I think), WP:WEB needs to be taken with a grain of salt when considering neologisms and internet memes.Aharon 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this article is the best source (read: praticaclly the only source) of information on the subject is exactly the problem. Nothing should be published here first. And if we took WP:WEB with a 'grain of salt' every time someone creates an article on a meme, we'd be overrun with meme articles. If this meme is such a big deal, there will be plenty of reliable publications that give it more than a name check soon enough, and then it might be appropriate for there to be an article here.

Further, I think you're misreading 'multiple, non-trivial published works' here. The blog mentions are multiple and non-trivial (ie, there are lots of them and they're entirely about the article's subject) but they're not 'published'. The Time magazine is published, but the mention is trivial. That makes lolruses notable enough for a passing mention in other articles (such as lolcat) but not yet worth a whole article. There just isn't enough content out there, as you pointed out. -- Vary | Talk 16:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Or rather, there's plenty of content, but the manner in which it is "published" defines whether or not it is acceptable as a wikipedia article. If this were indeed the case I imagine that there will be many many more articles on wikipedia that will be pruned -- and wikipedia will be less interesting and useful as a result.Aharon 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Yes, I'm sure there are other articles on wikipedia that should not be here for the same reasons that this one should not, but right now we're not talking about those. And if given the choice between being boring in your opinion and publishing what amounts to an original essay on a non-notable meme, I'll take boring and non-trivial any day. -- Vary | Talk 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. My point however was not to indicate that this article is trivial like other articles on wikipedia (that's your subjective opinion). I consider lolrus to be non-trivial like many other wikipedia articles, and it's deletion would make wikipedia less interesting and useful.Aharon 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion. This article does not satisfy WP:WEB. That's not subjective, it's objective. To satisfy wp:web there would need to be (say it with me) multiple, non-trivial sources from reliable publications. There aren't. Arguing that those problems should be overlooked because the article is useful and 'informative' amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. This meme currently fails wikipedia's notability guidelines. That is why I nominated it for deletion, not because of my personal feelings on the matter. -- Vary | Talk 21:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see multiple non-trivial sources). Not enough for a featured article or long article, but long enough to be kept certainly. Also redirect Minazo here, the subject of the Warlus meme, and you have more than enough sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minazo (2nd nomination) • Lawrence Cohen 19:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources, and why aren't they in the article? The sources from Minazo are about the animal, not the meme. In order to pass WP:WEB this article needs to have more than one article in a reliable publication (ie not a blog) that is primarily about this specific meme. Right now it doesn't, and pointing at the obit for Minazo is not going to make up for that. -- Vary | Talk 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I HAS A REDIRECT TO LOLCAT! As it has been stated above, it is just another part of the animal macro meme.Zuxtron 03:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, while a lolrus and a lolcat are both image macros, a lolrus is not a lolcat, so it makes no sense to redirect lolrus to lolcat. The lolcat article is not a general article for all animal macro memes.Aharon 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am very impressed by how much this page has improved over the last few days. It is now very well-sourced, allowing the reader to use Wikipedia as a launching-point for more substantial research using traditional media. The Lolrus has clearly moved beyond the internet, and can no longer be considered too trivial to deserve an article. --M@rēino 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well sourced? It is not sourced at all. I'd really like one person who's supported keeping the article to please show exactly how this article passes WP:WEB. What 'traditional media' sources does this article lead the reader to? If your argument for keeping is that you don't care that it doesn't pass the notability guidelines, please say so, but don't point to sources that don't exist as justification. The only reliable source that on the subject is a passing mention in an article on lolcats; that mention, in its entirety:

"The I HAS A BUCKET lolrus, starring a tragic walrus deprived of its only possession, is threatening to spin off into a freestanding meme in its own right."

So the only reliable source that even acknowledges that there is such a thing as a lolrus says that it is threatening to become a separate meme, but isn't one yet. All the 'I like it' in the world isn't going to help that. -- Vary | Talk 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Vary, read the article! It does indeed cite to traditional media: Time Magazine, the Minazo CDs, and Japan Times. Which, incidentally, is a good sign that an article is notable: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."--M@rēino 00:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reliable source that relates directly to the meme is the one liner from the Time article on lolcats. One line in an article about another subject is pretty much the definition of trivial. The others are non-trivial, but they're about the Minazo, not the meme, so they don't fly either. For subject X to pass wp:web, there need to be multiple published sources that are entirely about subject X (and not just about subjects related to X). -- Vary | Talk 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way: if I were to start a blog about my personal opinions on a given political figure, and that blog was mentioned briefly in a longer article on political blogs, I couldn't cite that mention and a bunch of articles on said political figure, and use it to justify starting a wikipedia article on my blog; the first mention is trivial, the second is not about the content itself. So citing sources that relate only to the political figure him or herself might be perfectly appropriate for an article about the blog, to provide context for the opinions it expresses, but they could not be used to pass wp:web. -- Vary | Talk 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Alright. Well, let's just say that I'm an inclusionist and you're a deletionist. Beyond that philosophical difference, it's hard for me to disagree. --M@rēino 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah, there. I am not a deletionist. I'm in favor of deleting the article because it's sourced primarily from blogs and fails wp:web. It's not a 'philosophical' matter. Not to snap at you or anything, but I do not like those labels. Invoking inclusionism/deletionism in an afd debate reduces the argument to "I like it" vs. "I don't like it." -- Vary | Talk 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. No need to resort to labels. Vary's just doing due dilligence on the articles here. Those working to make the lolrus article wikipedia-worthy can be thankful of the work of fellow wiki users (even wiki admins such as Vary) helping to improve the articles. Let's keep this discssion about lolrus and not about Vary, wiki admins, or wikipedia's evolved (in/ex)clusionary guidelines. Basically, Vary thinks that since the lolrus (itself) hasn't been the subject of its own article (independent of lolcats, i.e. what she calls "sourced") that it is trivial. In other words, she is saying that if lolrus was the subject of a few articles in the print media, that it would meet the notability guidlines in WP:WEB, that it would properly be recognized as non-trivial, and thus no longer under threat of imminent deletion. Correct? Meanwhile, other folks here are arguing to keep the article on the basis that the sources provided in the context of the lolrus article concerning the origin of the lolrus are sufficient to meet WP:WEB for the whole lolrus article (and thus non-trivial). Having said that, I agree with rēino that the article meets WP:WEB in that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The objection to Vary's argument isn't personal -- it simply finds Vary's approach to WP::WEB to be overly strict, in regards to lolrus but I think that is because her argument is focused on *a* lolrus as *a type*, instead of as *the* lolrus as *a meme* with an origin and context that has been sourced in all of the media prviously mentioned in the above arguments (and referenced in the article). Nothing personal! Aharon 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Which sources do you consider non-trivial published works about the content iteslf, please? The sources on the 'context' of the meme are not about the meme, they're about the same thing the meme is about. So your opinion that they allow the content to pass wp:web seems to be based on a flawed understanding of that guideline. -- Vary | Talk 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it is definitely based on a different understanding of that guideline. The "non-trivial" sources: music CDs by Merzbow, the untimely death of Minazo reported in the Japan Times, and finally, the mention in Time and slate.com. Contrary to your view, I believe that the context of the meme is indeed about the meme. Since this subtle point is the core disagreement in our argument, I think we may be at an impasse until a source is generated that fulfills your understanding of the WP:WEB guideline.Aharon 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is exactly one reliable source that even mentions the word 'lolrus.' None of those sources you've mentioned are about the content any more than an article on George Bush is about a blog expressing personal opinions of him. Those guidelines were very carefully written so that there can be no problems with interpretation, and by saying that your 'understanding' of the guideline permits sources about the identity of the animal in the photograph allow the meme to pass wp:web you seem to be overlooking a key phrase: the content itself. . -- Vary | Talk 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• That is because the lolrus existed prior to being called the lolrus. Originally the lolrus was simply Minazo performing his trademark pose with bucket. Minazo became notable as soon as Merzbow made a tribute album to him, and then additionally so when his images became the inspiration for the lolrus saga. Would you merge lolrus with Minazo?Aharon 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I might be in favor of that merge, if Minazo was notable, but that article is well on its way to being deleted. Are you in favor of merging to Minazo? If your argument is that this article is really about an animal, and not a meme, then will you accept that this article should be deleted if the article on the animal is?

Notability is not inherited. The albums may or may not pass wp:music, I haven't checked too closely. But either way, the notability of a work does not automatically transfer to its subject, as evidenced by the afd debate on said subject. And it certainly does not make a meme about their subject notable.

Your argument here seems to be recursive; the meme is notable because its about a notable animal, who is notable because there's a meme about him. The sources you are using to claim that the article passes wp:web are only relevant to the article Minazo; and even there, consensus seems to be that they're not enough to establish notability. This article is not about the animal: see the opening sentence: "A Lolrus is an image macro with a picture of a whiskered sea mammal often referencing a wistful relationship with a bucket." The intro doesn't even mention the animal. This article is about the meme. Any sources used to prove its notability also need to be about that meme. That is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. -- Vary | Talk 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article to my mind is about both the meme and the animal. One should not be separated from the other. The irony is that Minazo died a famous performance animal in captivity and was resurrected as a famous albeit anonymous meme. With the deletion of this article (and the Minazo article), his bucket will indeed be lost...Aharon 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's about both of them, then both of them need to be sourced. But your argument that 'Minazo is the lolrus' is spurious: the into to the article does not even mention Minazo. The image currently in the article isn't even of him. And how many of these are of Minazo?

But even if 'Lolrus' and 'Minazo' were synonymous, it's irrelevant if the Minazo sources are not even enough to prop up Minazo. This AFD is a mess and will very likely end in a no consensus once someone gets around to closing it, but there still hasn't been any reason given for keeping the article other than "I Like It!" or a claim that it's well sourced that isn't backed up by any actual sources. So I ask you again: since the only solid sources that have been provided relate only to Minazo, and not to his 'second life' as a meme, will you agree that this article should be deleted as non-notable if the article Minazo, which uses the same sources, is? -- Vary | Talk 16:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Both articles should be kept, obviously. Minazo is the ur-lolrus. All later lolruses simply continue the saga of the lolrus with the likeness of Minazo and his bucket. In platonic terms, there is only one true form of the lolrus, all others are variations on the theme of the first lolrus. This is why a saga exist for the lolrus which stems from the first lolrus. Perhaps this needs to be clarified in the article?Aharon 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless something extremely unexpected happens, Minazo will not be kept. This one may be kept by default just because of the sheer weight of more or less unsupported 'keep' arguments, but the meme still fails wp:web, and no amount of selective interpretation of that guideline is going to change the fact. You can 'clarify' all you want, but it's not going to fix the complete absence of any verifiability for the word 'lolrus'. -- Vary | Talk 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what? You're not saying anything new and your comments are getting more and more absurd. It was amusing for a while, but I'm frankly tired of watching you trying to make something so completely inane sound important (and talk your way around the lack of references) by using impressive-sounding words: talking about platonic idealism and calling Minazo the 'ur-lolrus', of all things? You're a very silly person and I'm not going to talk to you anymore. -- Vary | Talk 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I know I started it but it was very much intended as a stub and, having just come back to read what it's become, i've learnt a lot which i'm sure a lot of other people will also be interested in. I feel it now has easily enough information on the lolrus phenomenon to be worth a whole article, and i really dont think it should be merged with lolcat because, while it may have had its origins in lolcats, it is now very much its own meme with its own conventions. Bjakt 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about how much information the article has, but about whether that information is sourced, which it isn't. -- Vary | Talk 12:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article already has more references than Christiaan Barnard. Wikipedia's standards for references and notability are essentially arbitrary and meaningless. People might be interested in the lolrus meme; server space is cheap, ergo, you should keep this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.93.73 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2007 (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.