Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STFU Katielady

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. Enochlau 08:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] STFU Katielady

• del supposedly internet phenomenon; with 5 google hits (as of this moment). sheesh! mikka (t) 07:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JHMM13 07:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering whether it may be speedily deleted, since this is a clear case of provably false information: "internet phenomenon" with no internet presence. mikka (t) 08:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep--article has been modified to address concerns. (Full disclosure -- I am the original author of the article.) I see what you mean about the term 'internet phenomenon', and I agree that I mis-interpreted the term. I shall remove that term from the article. (I was interpreting the term as something that *was created* through the internet, whereas I'll agree with you that the definition ought to be *is spread* through the internet.) My apologies. However, I can verify the trend referred to in the article does legitametly exist, so I'll rewrite the article with a different classification to address the concerns raised here. Tavistmorph 16:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep--article needs a few factual revisions/clarifications but is mostly accurate. I am one of the original participants, I will be working with the author to amend the information. I agree that "Internet Phenomenon" is a misnomer; the meme mostly propagates person-to-person (using the Internet as a mode of communication and documentation) and installations are all real-world instances. sidney.oolongo@gmail.com 2005-11-27 12:56 EST
• Delete if it's not a neologism, it's certainly not noteworthy. Ifnord 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism. "Evidence" (Photoshopped?) is not compelling. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete With five Google hits, it's not much of a meme. Capitalistroadster 18:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It's certainly not an "internet phenomenom', but since that phrase has been apparently been removed by the original author, it passes all the other Wikipedia requirements. Google trail of this meme is admittedly small, but it demonstrably does exist. Heapchk 20:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You apparently are not familiar with wikipedia policies. Main issues here are notability and verifiability. We do not keep articles about things which do not already have articles in reputable sources. The reason is simple: wikipedia does not have peer review, and may rely only on already published third-party opinions. mikka (t) 20:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Bwithh 20:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It could be the next "all your base" but I would think then it would be notable. Also, seems to be "original research" even if it is spreading. One thought that occurs to be is someone may be trying to make it an "Internet phenomena" by getting it into the Wikipedia? Mark K. Bilbo 23:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems like an inside joke from one web forum that somebody is trying to turn into an Internet phenomenon, including the use of Wikipedia itself as a vehicle to spread the meme, which is not a proper function of this site. If it does manage to spread sufficiently, it will then be notable and the article can reasonably be recreated at that point. *Dan T.* 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it doesn't look like it's spread much beyond the original board where it started. It's not even close to being an "internet phenomenon" yet. --Bachrach44 16:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Heapchk. Stifle 12:54, 1 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.