Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet phenomena 3


 * 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Internet phenomena
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article states: "This is a list of phenomena specific to the Internet, such as popular themes and catchphrases, viral videos, amateur celebrities and more. Such fads and sensations grow rapidly on the Internet because its instant communication facilitates word of mouth. The search and rating features of sites like YouTube and Google then amplify this interest"
 * 1) Who or what decides when something on the internet has earned the 'phenomena' status?
 * 2) If this list was complete, it would be constantly growing from the thousands of 'phenomena's, a small fraction is in Category:Internet personalities, Category:Entertainment websites, Category:Internet forums etc. Anything which is notable enough for Wikipedia could be considered an 'internet phenomena'; there is no way to accurately measure it.
 * 3) Can a line be drawn between very popular internet content and internet content that has gained the phenomena status?
 * The following guidelines & policies this article may not comply with are:


 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * No original research - the editors have to decide what is a phenomena, and what is not, based on what? See above.
 * Neutral point of view - editors may find some 'phenomenas' need including more than others because they are more familiar/like it more.
 * This article is a target of endless edit wars as there is no way to properly identify what is a phenomena and what is not. Just look through the huge amounts of talk archives.
 * Every 'phenomena' has an article, do we really need this ever-growing list of things chosen by random Wikipedians who feel it is notable enough to include?
 * --Seriousspender (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Though I've deleted numerous entries from this article (as having unsourced notability), the entries that remain are properly sourced as having reached "phenomenon" status; i.e., making it into mainstream news and culture. The subject itself (near overnight fame via the WWW) is a relatively new and notable phenomenon in itself. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Half the things in those categories I've mentioned have made it into 'mainstream news and culture'.--Seriousspender (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per OhNoitsJamie. The list itself is not problem. Entries is. And the wikieditor's work is keep or delete those entries. Zerokitsune (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I almost think this would work better as a list of lists, that points to more-focused lists. --Dhartung | Talk 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, when does something go from "mildly interesting with a bit of news coverage" to "phenomena"? Criteria for inclusion are much too fuzzy to make this list useful.  Lankiveil (complaints 02:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Presumably when a reliable source says so. Though I see scant evidence of reliable sources, it has to be said. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many of your objections apply only to individual articles within the list, not the list itself, and the remainder of them are collectively minor enough that the answer to them is viligance and care rather than deletion. -Toptomcat (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, so the only criteria for inclusion are that "it happened on the Internet", and "sources available"? That could apply to almost anything!  Lankiveil (complaints 07:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
 * No, the sourcing has to describe the item as an internet phenomenon or use words to that effect. The archetypal example is Numa Numa Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Use the words to that effect? That involves the editors opinion, and going along with that rule this list would be considerably larger.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a normal feature of English that many words have synonyms. Your point is cheap, devoid, dishonest, dumb, fatuous, frivolous, futile, hollow, idle, ignorant, inane, ineffective, ineffectual, insincere, insipid, jejune, meaningless, nugatory, otiose, paltry, petty, purposeless, senseless, silly, trivial, unintelligent, unsatisfactory, unsubstantial, vacuous, valueless, vapid and worthless. :)  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You added the Angry German Kid and used as a source, does it "describe the item as an internet phenomenon or use words to that effect"? I don't think so, if so where is the Farting Reverend, or The Christmas Lights House and other things mentioned in the source? This just shows the extent of the problem this article has. And please make that your last edit that is filled with nonsense.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant phrase in this case is Greatest Hits of Viral Video. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like your missing many from Category:Viral videos then. And why is it there if it doesn't even have its own article? I thought a 'phenomena' had reached 'mainstream news and culture' as mentioned above? These things I have just been mentioning is the prime reason this article is not worth keeping. As User:Dhartung mentioned, this list would be far more manageable split into List of Viral Videos, List of Viral Images etc. In it's current state it is unmaintainable.--Seriousspender (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see our editing policy which is summarised as : "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect". In other words, if you find this article to be imperfect, please improve it.  AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to clean up or improve a list which is unmaintainable anyway. Just go to categories of viral videos, flash cartoons, and other related categories, and you'll see that it is likely to exceed 1000 entries. That is also not including the main problem as mentioned in the nom.--Seriousspender (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article currently has about 80 entries and the article size is 35K which is well within the size guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So I have to add 1000 entries to prove the problem?--Seriousspender (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1000 wouldn't even come close to the record. Please see List of minor planets.  This and its 173,000 entries regularly survives AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are split into seperate sub-pages, similar to the suggestion of splitting this list up. Plus that doesn't face the same problems as this does.--Seriousspender (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I fail to see anything new being added to the this discussion that hasn't been discussed in the old AfDs. For example it has ask before Who or what decides when something on the internet has earned the 'phenomena' status? and been answered that "The 'accepted definition' [of phenomena] is in Wikipedia's own notability policy: once a phenomenon is covered by a secondary news source, it becomes verifiable and thus notable." This is the very reason why almost each entry has a reference attached to it. I would be very tempted to say this AfD could be a WP:SNOWBALL but meh who am I to decide that. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this should be a category, not an article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory.Undeath (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination's characterisation of the list as subject to "endless edit wars" is a blatant falsehood as you can readily see by looking at the edit history. The nominator's own edits have been largely uncontested and there were no edits at all between 8 and 13 of Jan - a period of 5 days.  I have been watching the list for some time and it seems remarkably stable and uncontentious now.  Since the requirement for good sourcing was established, editors are quite tentative about adding new entries and there is usually some discussion on the talk page first.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My edits were reverted, twice. And the page is semi-protected because everyone thinks that everything that has an article on wikipedia is a phenomena.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at your first edit, we see that your changes are still in the current version. My strong impression is that your nomination is some kind of WP:POINT ("self-promoting faggots") and that you're reaching to justify it.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because I didn't add or remove any phenomena's, you reverted my legitimate template additions twice with a rather hostile response on your talk page. Well I get the 'impression' that you are acting like some kind of defender of this article since you have been editing it since March 07. You exhibit the behaviours of an article defender.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I would agree that the list existing as an article is a bad idea, with the equivilent category existing the article offers no notability for suitable inclusion on Wikipedia. If the category didn't exist I would have nothing against this article, but as it does I believe that the article has little or no purpose. If someone can suggest a suitable feature that can be added to the article in order for it to be notable enough for inclusion, I may change my opinion. --GM matthew (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no equivalent category so your comments indicate that your position is actually Keep, right? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the user says "If someone can suggest a suitable feature that can be added to the article in order for it to be notable enough for inclusion,", agreeing with what I've said in the nomination.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevant quote is "If the category didn't exist I would have nothing against this article". Colonel Warden (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He is saying both are not needed then?--Seriousspender (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * keep. I'm sure this invites unsourced additions all the time and thus needs a watchful eye, but so do loads of other articles. It's currently a well-sourced and scoped list of such phenomena with short descriptions, which is quite useful—if I'm looking for one that I vaguely recall, how else am I supposed to know what the article is going to be called? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a WP:USEFUL. There's categories, and if the list has 1000 entries it won't necessarily help you find what you are looking for. Categories are more suitable for this purpose. It's not well sourced, if you look at the article and the discussion of this AFD.--Seriousspender (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't think being useful is a negative quality. When discussing a list, it's totally relevant whether its arrangement as a list (as opposed to or in addition to a category) is useful. In this case it is for all of the usual reasons: it allows us to mention things that don't have articles, and it allows us to include additional information (short descriptions). Obviously I looked at the article and AFD and simply disagree with you about the quality of sources. 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brighterorange (talk • contribs)
 * If it doesn't have its own article, then obviously it isn't notable enough to be considered a phenomena? Right? I wasn't talking about the quality of sources, I'm talking about the quantity. If we mention 'phenomena' that are not notable to have their own article, you can assume that this list will exceed 10,000+ entries.--Seriousspender (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. See WP:N "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." A sentence can be appropriate in a list, with citation, even when something isn't notable enough for a whole article. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As long as it's sourced, etc (and links to Wikipedia articles on the subjects in question count in this instance as the individual articles establish notability, references, etc) I see nothing to suggest that this list is any less worthy of a Wikipedia list article than it was when it was speedy kept 11 months ago. If there's an issue whether or not these phenomena are notable, that's an issue to be settled by the editors of the individual articles themselves. Last I looked I saw only one redlink (which can be culled); otherwise in lieu of any successful AFD challenges against the individual articles, the fact they have Wikipedia articles is in itself an indication of notability. 23skidoo (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article seems fine to me and is similar to an Almanac type listing. It is well-referenced and a useful starting point. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Capitalistroadster. Earthere (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a good list, nominator is encouraged to be bold and edit items that they think aren't notable. Tarinth (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I sympathize with Seriousspender's intentions and applaud his well-written nomination, however I'm afraid I come down on the side of those arguing that the article is well enough sourced. I join Tarinth in suggesting that all editors should rigorously apply our notability guidelines and especially our sourcing policy to this article. But as long as there are reliable sources showing that an independent, published reliable source has recognized a particular entry as a phenomenon (or a reasonable equivalent of that), then the entries are okay. Best, Gwernol 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a good idea.--Conjoiner (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this type of information is why people started coming to WP and has always been the core of the project. it is still our strength. Our real policy is to keep this type of list, and any poorly worded statements implying otherwise need to be adjusted. DGG (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep  If you have problems with individual items on the list, fix or AFD those articles.   The list contains some indisputably notable items. Jwray (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep important topic. Woth keeping this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is these internet meme are barely lived, they are rarely known from the public, and thus, no new notability are found for these. Ryou-kun16 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep They are an important part of "Internet culture" and should be covered, a list is a very effective way to do that.Shadoom (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- In its current size its ok, as there's no policies against having a list and a catergory, and it seems well sourced. If it grows to an unmanagable level, then we should split it up, albeit with an introduction paragraph to internet phenomena, and a short introduction and perhaps one of the most notable examples of each type of phenomena --Patar knight (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Size is not a consideration, because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no guideline against redundancy  between lists and categories.  Besides, large lists are easier to manage than categories.   The list is not a directory, because it lists articles, which makes it a navigation aid.  Very interesting and useful list.  This is the type of coverage that makes Wikipedia great.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    02:50, 1 February 2008 (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.