Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark and Helicopter

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shark and Helicopter

This subject returns 42 hits on google. Is this internet meme stub fit for inclusion in any encyclopedia? Why or why not? Please explain your vote. --GRider\^talk 19:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This is probably more notable than the average internet meme, since it was debunked by National Geographic (see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0815_020815_photooftheyear.html ) but still, in my opinion, just not notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable on b3ta, and this article is very informative - it told me who the two photographers were, how the image was made, the National Geographic debunking.Richard W.M. Jones 23:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update: I think the reference to 42 hits on Google is a bit unfair. The image is very well known, but does not go by the name Shark and Helicopter as far as I'm aware. This implies that the title of the page is bad, and could be improved (Shark and Helicopter Image, Shark and Helicopter Meme, Bad Day at Work Meme, ...) Richard W.M. Jones 10:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Same as Richard. The Recycling Troll 23:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don' tunderstand the reasoning of people. Somebody coming to Wikipedia five years from now is going to wonder, "what were these people thinking?" Let's not keep articles on nonce events which are already passed their prime. RickK 00:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it anyway. Wyss 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep internet memes which the National Geographic debunks. Real users don't use "random page". Kappa 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What does "real users don't use random page" mean? By that reasoning, you should have voted delete, since nobody is going to search for "shark and helicopter". RickK 01:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • It means they either search, or they click on links to find what they are looking for. This is an interesting example of photoshopping, and particular useful because of its debunking. Kappa 09:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. ComCat 02:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and who says that pic is PD. BrokenSegue 02:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 02:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Beneath notice. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 42 googles is FAR below the bar for an internet meme. Radiant! 09:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not snopes.com. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- unless (1) it can be put in a category like 'debunked' or 'hoaxes,' and (2) if such categories belong in the encyclopedia. There's a lot of dated material here, and this is just another example of "kooky things that happened in 2002. " Halley 18:24, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • Category:Hoaxes would seem to fit the bill. Kappa 01:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Wikipedia is the sum of all internet memes. —RaD Man (talk) 02:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It was a not-particularly-interesting or novel hoax. Rossami (talk) 16:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Wait, Weak delete. Trivial topic, but craftsmanlike article. Wikipedia is not Snopes, but notable hoaxes have a place. But the problem is the copyright status of the image, without which the article is pretty worthless. An external link could be used, but isn't likely to have a long lifetime. Delete unless the image can be shown to be public domain before expiration of VfD, which is vanishingly unlikely."This image is believed to be in the Public Domain. It can be seen on hundreds of websites around the world" isn't convincing. Note that the National Geographic story credits the helicopter component to "Lance Cheung/U.S. Air Force Photo" which might be OK, but the shark component is credited to "Charles Maxwell" and almost certainly isn't. Let alone the hoaxster, who might pop up at any moment claiming a copyright on what is certainly a derivative work. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) P. S. For the record, this vote is on this particular article. It is not a vote on any policy about "articles on internet memes."
• Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 21:18, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

RE: "I don' tunderstand the reasoning of people. Somebody coming to Wikipedia five years from now is going to wonder, "what were these people thinking?" Let's not keep articles on nonce events which are already passed their prime. RickK 00:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) "

The Meme IS what 'we' are thinking, no??? er...

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.