Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O RLY? (4th 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   keep. Tim Song (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

O RLY?
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Our sources: 1. A trivial mention in a 4chan article. 2. Forum post. 3. Forum post. 4. 4chan search. 5 and 6. Trivial mentions.

Tiger Weekly: Student newspaper.

And this is notable how? I can't find a single reliable secondary source that mentions this. Prove me wrong; don't just say WP:ITSNOTABLE. IF YOU KNOW THERE ARE SOURCES, ADD THEM. (Note: I removed an example farm, the sources for which were primary or unreliable.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Toronto Star is a big newspaper in Toronto, with higher circulation (but less prestige) than The Globe and Mail. CRN Australia is or was Computer Reseller News, a magazine for computer dealers. Both are reliable sources, and the mentions are more than trivial. And student newspapers are also usually reliable sources, in my experience. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "And student newspapers are also usually reliable sources, in my experience." O RLY? :-D Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keep', this is almost as prevalent as LOL. YA RLY.  --Bobak (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial mentions in the reliable sources mentioned above; the Toronto Star paper is about lolcats, of which the coverage of this is a comparatively minor aspect. The CRN article is about the worm; the actual macro merits only a single sentence. Student newspapers cannot be used as blanket reliable sources, especially as they have looser editorial standards than larger organizations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. What is it with this mania with trying to delete obviously well-known internet memes? At least find a merge target, such as Image macro. Ten Pound Hammer already tried to get this deleted in 2008. You really must improve your searching for sources (try to see past the red mist), all these include at least mention of the meme and often more: For internet culture, isn't Rocketboom perfectly reliable? It's been described as a "notable example" of the image macro: Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is a positive suggestion, WP:SOFIXIT is not a valid argument for either keeping or deleting an article. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added three sources. I think that adding any more would just be reference bombing. The Der Spiegel article relies on Wikipedia as its source for O RLY? - using that source would be fact laundering. This meme has received enough attention to pass notability guidelines, and the facts are verified well enough, so I don't see that our readers will be served by deleting this article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequate sourcing seems to exist. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree the sources are pretty weak. Mo' Urban Dictionary: Ridonkulous Street Slang Defined and Game Addiction: The Experience and the Effects could be added I guess, but it's little more than a DICDEF with seemingly little possibility of expansion. Could possibly be merged elsewhere. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as there are reliable sources that have commented on the use of the shorthand. Of course the article's cause would be bolstered if any of the citations from the abovementioned reliable sources were actually inserted into the article as the ones that are actually there really don't bolster its suitability for Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article had been edited and sources added. Every sentence in the article is now reliably sourced. It may also be worth noting that at least one major media organization (Der Spiegel) has cited this article in one of their articles on memes ; I've put the {onlinesource} tag on the talk page. The Internet meme timeline which has been published by several media organizations also uses this article as a source for the 2003 appearance date of "O RLY?" -- Wine Guy ~Talk  09:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think when a major media organization cites WP they cease thenceforth to be a RS, but yeah the article is in a better state now. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Image macro. The topic is fully covered there, in so far as significant coverage is lacking. --Bejnar (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-sourced and notable per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, article has been improved to wiki standards, with notability proven without question. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this was a fair nomination but I believe it is now moot since the article has been adjusted.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 07:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into image macro, O RLY is easily recognizable as such and would serve as a good descriptor for the image macro article, but doesn't necessarily deserve its own article. Toad of Steel (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2010 (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.