Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objection!


 * 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 OVERRULED- er...I mean DELETED. Despite the army of sock/meatpuppets, the consensus among established users is pretty much unanimous that this shouldn't be a standalone page. With no evidence that this is a noteworthy meme, the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney page won't benefit from a merge, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Objection!
An internet meme, and one that doesn't seem particularily notable by any indicator except for the number of "Objections" that the site says have been created. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe .RON   talk  22:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with it's listing there, since it's not really about a computer game any more than All your base is. Darksun 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (The participants of this AfD are suggested to listen to the music appropriate to the occassion. Let the wikilawyering commence! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Under the reasoning that Alexa.com's ranking shows high levels of visitors. And sorry if I responded wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.157.218 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Given that it has a weekly average of 8,675, which is quite high. We also have to consider that the alexa bias would weigh against this site since the majority of it's users are gee^H^H^Hmore technically minded, meaning they're less likely to have alexa installed, if we believe the sites figures for a moment, 59% of users don't use IE. Darksun 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, not only is 8,600 not particularily high, but it is clear that it has not held this average for a very long period of time. It could be a passing fad. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The site has only existed at this address for a couple of weeks, so to look at any other average would be misleading, plus, take into account what I said about a high alexa bias in this case. If it was more representative of true web use, it'd probably be around 4,000, or maybe even higher. Darksun 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to Objection! (Phoenix Wright). -- Chris  Ccool2ax   contrib.  04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, it would still be the same article, with the same reasoning applying. The name isn't really an issue. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If we had a WP:WHOCARES, I think it'd probably apply to this one. This is of zero encyclopaedic value and cannot be documented to pass WP:MEME or WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. GassyGuy 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Phoenix Wright and redirect. Penelope D 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Move (as per Chris). I don't agree with Merge on the grounds that this page is not an official Phoenix Wright page, nor is not a feature or easter egg of the game. The page, as it stands as of this moment, is factually correct. The defense cedes that the notability of Objection! cannot be proved by conventional means. However, I propose, based on the fact that this article is well written and accurate, that the prosecution take it upon themselves to attempt to prove this article is not notable. My analysis of the article is, of course, subjective. I naturally invite you to contradict, or support my claim. Although, it might be more productive for Wikipedia if, instead of pointing out factual inaccuracies in this article, you instead take it upon yourself to investigate and rewrite parts which are not to your satisfaction. MrD 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, that's as bad as asking me to prove that Intelligent Design doesn't exist. As I have no access to statistics or anything reliable on the page, its notability is essentially non-falsifiable. That is, I can't prove that it's false. Therefore the burden responsibility should fall upon yourself to prove that it is notable. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I believe we've come to the crux of the matter, which is this: I believe that this article should never have been VfD'd. If you check the history, it was nominated originally for deletion only eight minutes after it was first made. I believe that such an article should at not be outed almost instantly just because it is classed as an 'internet phenomenon', but given 'stub' status until such time as it's notability can be determined without any doubt one way or the other. Is there any Wikipedia statistics that can be used to determine the popularity of the article? Ignoring the website for the time being: until statistics which are considered to be Wiki-kosher are gleaned (refer to my comments about asking the author for any more real stats), this is the only real data that can be analysed in any form. The only other fact around which we can base any real argument is that Objection! exists. Obvious, yes, but I believe that this alone may be the reason why it's been added to Wikipedia: Somebody figured that Objection! was popular enough to write about. Others, including myself, found it useful enough to refer to, and worthy enough to add to. It's a good article as it stands, and it should remain because of this. Basically, it's popularity is shown by its presence on Wikipedia. MrD 10:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it's far more productive to AfD the article right away - if the subject fails to get popular, it means there's less wasted effort, if the subject becomes a sneaky hit, it's a matter of DRVing the thing and restoring the history (if needed). If, on the other hand, the (early) AfD finds the material keepable, that strengthens the article's reason of existence and is less likely to get AfD'd later, as you can refer to the earlier decision. Also remember, we don't make articles about stuff that's about to become popular, we're making articles about stuff that is popular. You can only start an "about to become popular" article if a country goes to war with another (apologies for using a current-events example) or something of that magnitude happens. Plus, we're absolutely not shy of deleting articles that are "popular" by Wikipedia standards (ie, have a ton of revisions) - the notability of the subject is all that matters. If Wikipedia article popularity mattered, we'd create articles about the articles. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I know you're yankin' my chain: Birkenhead is popular with nobody! :P MrD 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But the notability of even the smallest of towns is established, they get sometimes AfDd, and pretty much always kept if the town actually exists... And besides, as you can see, you can write a lot more about Birkenhead than this thing. With multiple printed sources. How about deleting a whole frigging continent with no permanent population at all, can't be a very interesting place by that fact alone, now can it? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehehe @ MrD! I guess you might have to live in Birkenhead yourself to get that. 80.47.227.228 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge And Redirect - A merge would be justified and easy to incorporate into the main Phoenix Wright article; We can easily have a section for memes that it has spawned. Additionally, while I need to look into it more, the episode of XPlay which covered this written version of the review apparently mentioned the meme. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a popular site, it's got an extraordinary number of hits in a small time. Darksun 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source for that claim? wikipediatrix 17:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Objection! FAQ, the maker of the site tells you how many total objections have been made, along with how much bandwidth he uses, currently 224.341 GB. However, disappointingly, it does not name the number of hits. But I think we can substantiate that it is an incredibly popular site. --NomaderTalk 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you should check that seven figure number below the number of "objections": The number of "objection" views. Currently, it's 2580201. MrD 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And what evidence do you have that it didn't start at 2580000? The site might be that popular, but we can't just take it's owner's word for it. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to, just start with the first objection, changing the last number in the URL I just gave you from n=1 to n=2 and so on. Work your way up to number 462,401 if you have the time. --NomaderTalk 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually e-mailed the author for any information he might know of that isn't on his site and can prove that it's as popular as he claims it is. He gave me this, which is the site that's hosting it official log record, and this, a screenshot of some menu he has. Nothing that will keep this article alive. I hate to say it, but it's a goner. --NomaderTalk 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the original creator of this article - I believe that this internet meme is popular enough to merit its own article. Considering that things such as Limecat and Bunchies are fine Wikipedia articles, I have no reason to believe that this article is not fit for Wikipedia. --NomaderTalk 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty questionable too, but at least they manage more than two references. Also, the two references here are the site itself. Is there any way to prove the reliable source coverage necessary to meet either WP:MEME or WP:WEB? GassyGuy 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think I'm becoming quite a wishy-washy voter here... this site is popular enough in my opinion to merit its own article. Not only that, but since its original creation, the article quality has increased tri-fold. And, from the information provided to me by the maker of the site (it's somewhere in this mess), I approve of the article I started. --NomaderTalk 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Normally, I'm not one to change votes, especially on an article that I created myself in the beggining. However, I now regret what I have written in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. The Generator is fun, but it doesn't merit any article. It lacks any outside sources or references of popularity, and somehow managed to get thousands of hits because it let you type something. If this article were allowed to pass, so would all of these. And although Generators are fun, they aren't meant for Wikipedia. --NomaderTalk 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator Schicksal 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (and the fact that I don't care). --Rehcsif 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, minor internet meme with unverifiable claims of notability. Note that we cannot take the site's own word for the number of views it has received or the amount of bandwidth it uses! It is not a reliable source. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can verify that the number of Objections is accurate, just create an objection, look at the number, then try any number smaller than that. Consider also that there are 11,200 links to objections listed on Google, a high number considering the site has only existed for a couple of weeks. Darksun 21:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, that's not unusual on the internet. Other memes with more hits have been deleted, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Ok, the hits counter thing is ridiculous! That comment where we can trust hit counters, that's just like saying all text-based hit counters shouldn't be trusted. If it did start at whatever ridiculous number you said, then I'd like to see someone go try rigging a counter to start at 240000000. The counter is put there as a source of facts, not a popularity contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.204.85 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as per User:GassyGuy. -- moe .RON   talk  22:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable website, diiiiiiie Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is only a minor meme. Also fails website notability guidelines. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep* If people view the sie site or want to know about it we must keep the article, or else wikipedia will be a horribly incomplete source of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.245.16 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, not the source of knowledge, and trying to fill it to replace all other resources would be counterproductive. This is why there are such rules as WP:V and the likes. GassyGuy 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please, oh please, tell me that the above 'keep' comment was tongue-in-cheek. --Rehcsif 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge (somewhere) or delete. Keep is not an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Why is the Objection generator any more notable than any other of the vast number of generators plaguing the internet? Because the site's author says it gets two million hits? Yeah, well I say my website containing the word "parakeet" exactly 243 times gets two million hits, so let's give it an article! You have two choices, either find a reliable source that indicates notability, or admit that this article should be deleted. Which is it? --68.52.65.122 03:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Y'all seem to doubt the verifiability of the hit counter on the FAQ page. Has anybody actually contacted the author for any kind of confirmation? MrD 08:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, it's not a hit counter, it's an "Objections!" counter. I really wouldn't think of it as a problem though, it's the most pointless of things to fake. Many people may do multiple Objections, so it doesn't necessarily speak directly to popularity. Besides that, see what I said way up about the Alexa info. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a nit-pick, there's a hit ("objection" views, rather than "objection" creations) counter below the "objection"s counter. MrD 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Okay, then I'm blind. Unique hits, anyone? Or non-page-specific hits? (Besides that, still doesn't do much for the web guidelines.) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, hit counters. Get us media citations. Those rarely spin. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Insert here my best Manfred von Karma impression... which usually fails spectacularly. =) Absolutely no proof that this thing is really all that famous. Funny, though, but not really much more than a minor meme. And as stated so many times before: Yes, Wikipedia is an incomplete source of information - because there's too much to know in our world, we need to stick to stuff that matters and is encyclopedic. We don't need to cover really marginal stuff, and that wouldn't be desirable even... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Article was nominated within minuites of being created. All wikipeida artcles start out as stubs, and if we AFD that quick, we wouldn't have over a million. This is a MEME; it is just a young one, and I would expect it to grow very quickly. If this meme isn't majorly popular within a month or two, then AFD it, not 9 mins after article creation. NeoThermic 16:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing an external link on Phoenix Wright article ("... an "Objection!" generator that became a minorly popular Internet meme", or something along those lines). What I really object to is the fact that we'd need a whole article for this. I'm really, really not opposed to having it somewhere. It's just that the extent of the meme's popularity should dictate how greatly it should be covered in Wikipedia. Right now, right here, this thing isn't popular enough to warrant a whole article. It's barely worth the external link.--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://objection.4camp.net/go.php?n=505055 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.3.62 (talk • contribs).
 * http://objection.4camp.net/go.php?n=508784 Two people can play this game, and I'll be wiser to quit now. =) Seriously, though, using the image generators in deletion debates is not entirely constructive... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Phoenix Wright series. It's a notable meme, enough to get mentioned on a page, but not mentioned as a page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I added it there. Better than nothing at all, in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a young meme, but it's had quite a number of visitors.  69.81.201.94 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a growing and incresingly popular meme. If anything move it into the Pheonix Wright article, but I think it's strong enough to be it's own article. SSJTOM 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Move as per Chris. While the meme is fairly popular, one can only assume from the number it will increase in popularity. At the very least, it should be merged, not deleted. Diametes T. Jackson 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a popular site worth mentioning. There are hundreds of Wikipedia pages like this one. It's not fair to delete this page, and leave the rest of them there.--Sima Yi 00:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by all means, please brings these pages to attention with or WP:AFD them. --  moe .RON   talk  02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be Disrupting Wikipedia? Darksun 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, or Move as per Chris. Seems like it has a strong enough following to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. - DrachenFyre &gt; YOU! 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Move as per Chris. 154.20.251.253 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or 'Merge into Phoenix Wright series. Growing fast enough to get some sort of nod. --68.9.152.140 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As stupid as hell as these things have proven to be, it should be kept as it is quite a huge phenomenon on the internet and it probably isn't going to die down. A Clown in the Dark 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment everyone here is calling it a "huge" meme. Where the devil is the evidence of this? I would suspect that people are coming here from somewhere else, ie. GameFAQs, though that site's forums are too odd for me to find this out. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The website is apparently down and is directing people to the Wikipedia page on; this then leads them to here and they vote to keep. *sigh* --  moe .RON   talk  04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment blast and damn. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I recieved an e-mail from the creator of Objection! regarding Moeron's comment. I had previously e-mailed him for information about the information listed on his site, so he just sent me an e-mail asking for me to post this up for him. Apologies for taking up so much room, but he deserves to be heard out. I also recieved this page, which shows the site's current bandwidth usage for Objection!. It was provided to me at an earlier time, and I posted it - yet, most seemed to ignore it. I do have a screenshot and a few other sites, but I think that's all you need.

''I linked to Objection on Wikipedia because I like Wikipedia, and I think that it's become a useful reference for information such as this. That's all," he said.

"To tell you the truth, my host was absolutely livid about Objection. They thought it would be something that would pass in a day or two... when they saw the bandwidth per day, they just cut me like -that-. It was stretching it to convince them to change the message from 'This site has used too much bandwidth and is temporarily offline' (or something like that) to that single spartan HTML page. I wasn't at my home computer at the time of the cut, so I didn't have the Objection source stuff handy. I couldn't FTP the FAQ out of the website, they wouldn't let me. I had to contact the host directly to get them to upload that page instead of the standard bandwidth error. Wikipedia was the only site I could link to that had the correct information so they could find out what all these weird numbered links they were seeing on forums were."

"Anyway, Objection!'ll be back before you know it, and Wikipedia can be back to it's ordinary self again. Wouldn't that be a relief, eh? :D" --NomaderTalk 01:52, July 31, 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I found this page on my own, and I must say I'm very suprized this would ever be considered for deletion. I myself have seen about 100 different objections used on a forum I visit. They're quite fun. FreeLance FoX 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I have seen so many of these used in several forums I go to. Several internet memes derived from videogames HAVE recieved their own Wikipedia page, not a category of the game itself. All Your Base Are Belong To Us doesn't direct to Zero Wing, does it? And, if the site does start to stop being used a bit, we can always delete the page later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.166.5 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep, interesting Meme, nice example how a game celebrating a feature of the DS (you can actually shout Objection at your console), will spark memes like this and ofcourse on the PW page their should be a linky in the trivia section to this Romanista 07:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, i find the talk of whether this meme is 'popular' enough to be somewhat bizzare - how to you qualify that anyway? hit counters only show half the story - it all depends on whether the visitors wanted to go there/knew where they were going in the first place, for a start. memes are a social phenomenon, and as such, i have seen this one on a number of different forums i frequent, and just as much as, say 'All Your Base', so I would say it is valid.--Gecks 09:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It must meet some sort of verifiability as well as some criteria for notablility; in this case, WP:WEB. -- moe .RON   talk  17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All that is required is a footnote on the page for Phoenix Wright. Objection! is amusing, but entirely ephemeral, and has become 'popular' only because the game is. PatrickJLByrne 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Phoenix Wright. This is a non notable internet fad, but it would do well to redirect to the game -- Steel 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per MrD --Morlark 11:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing about this is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedian06 05:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Phoenix Wright You have no proof it was me. 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The Objection generator is already mentioned in the external links of the article about Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorny, it warrants nothing further. 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete As not notable for an article --Pichu0102 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's popular... it gets alot of visitors. It's a valid thing to have an article on, and keeping the article will not harm Wikipedia in any way, and will probably have more of a positive effect than a negative one. --71.194.67.119 07:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Because Wikipedia is not an organisation that determines whether sites or notable or not based on thier liking of them or personal opinions on the matter. It's a resource, even a passing fad is something to be noted and remembered. If you can't see the logic behind keeping it, at least include the link in the Pheonix Wright entry. --Seraphna 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, WP:WEB. Bzzzzzt. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles still need to meet some sort of verifiability as well as some criteria for notablility; in this case, WP:WEB. Granted, possibly in the future the site may meet WP:WEB, but it doesn't right now. And if there are any other articles on here similiar PLEASE point them out to us. -- moe .RON   talk  17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We Wont Run Out Of Room Owwmykneecap 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not the concern. It's WP:NOT and that the Wikipedia strives to be (mostly) encyclopedic. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base This is how internet phenomena go - To delete this is to delete what made Wikipedia, the input of the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.249.13 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment The thing is that both of those articles have reliable sourcing in non-trivial publications, as per criteria. This article (at this present time) has yet to reach other media then a small community. -- moe .RON   talk  01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Explain what "small community" you are referring to. Listed on the Objection! wiki, it claims 3 rather LARGE "communities" are involved with the use and knowledge of Objection!. Various friends I know online and offline, who aren't involved or aware of those 3 communities know of Objection! and have directed my attention to it. A rather large portion of people who browse the internet on a daily basis know of this, in such a short time. Also, various people have been stating that it gets a high voltage of traffic, and the proof is in it's stats. Each "Objection!" page is rather small in filesize, for a site that hosts it's main content as a small, singlefile page, sure is using a large amount of bandwidth and gets a large amount of hits. IceSage 04:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "small community" meaning it has yet to be mentioned in a non-trivial, reliable source ala All Your Base and Leeroy Jenkins. Wikipedia is about verifiabiliy, not truth. We can not go on your saying the page is popular, since that is original research. We also can not add content to a Wikipedia article going on what the webmaster reports to users here, since information added needs to that have already been published by reputable publishers (WP:V). -- moe .RON   talk  05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to get off-topic, but I'm a bit confused as to an actual example of a reliable source is, and yes, I read the guidelines... However, where are the reliable sources in the Leeroy Jenkins article? (Please don't reply with "Jeopardy.") Provide an accurate example of a reliable source and I can make the appropriate arrangments to get these sources notified into printing an article, etc.
 * Keep Why?  Very simple.  It's an amusing internet phenomenon that is developing the kind of fanbase that makes Snakes On A Plane already a smash hit before even coming out in theaters.  It's the kind of driving force that has a life of its own because it was so simple, yet so clever.  A device that generates comments in a court scene for fun and games?  Sure, why not?  People have adored more for less.  It's the simple things in life that get to you.  I don't think you should bother blotting out "Objection!", though I will say that it's good to see it gets a fair trial.  And if anyone has any...objections...well, so be it.  Personally, I like it.  Let's keep it around for our simple enjoyment.  204.215.207.106 02:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)The Lord Massacre
 * Keep Seems to be reasonably popular, I have seen it linked from several (unrelated) websites in the last few days. And the article can be deleted later if the fad dies, there is no need to rush it. Alsaan 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because this is just another example of deletionist fuckheads trying to ruin the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.233.87 (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, I mean, it couldn't be that people think that it's not notable enough. So are you going to vote keep for every article, including a random person who lacks any notability? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Simple enough. I saw 'Objection!' being repeatedly linked to on a forum, I was curious, I looked it up on Wikipedia and the article told me exactly what I wanted to know. That is, after all, why I use this site. Regardless of whatever standards of 'notability' are considered necessary for an internet meme to warrant a serious encyclopedia article (laugh), I found the article useful, so I say let it stand. S. Mitchell 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. That argument could be made for any article, whether it be for my friend down the street Isaac Sletto or the Iceberg level from Kirby's Dream Land 3. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I like Wikipedia primarily because of its indiscriminate nature. To me, the fact that it archives information even on minor things that only a handful of people would want to look up is what seperates it from other encyclopedias. I'm aware that any point I could make has probably been hammered into the ground already, but you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that an article containing information I found personally useful is not noteworthy enough to exist. 59.167.180.72 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but there are more people who will turn to Wikipedia for information about this popular site than for information about your friend, and the information about the Iceberg level can be placed into the main Kirby's Dream Land 3 article. Granted, you could argue that this information be merged into the main Phoenix Wright article, but I disagree with that merger on the grounds that it's not an official Phoenix Wright spinoff or advertisement. However, I'd rather see the article merged than all information about it deleted from Wikipedia. Darksun 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So because it's more popular than some random person, it deserves its own article? There are probably hundreds of thousands of pages that are more well-known than Objection!, and few of them have articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This site is used on many forums for humorous purposes. It would be a moot point to try and use all of these forums as references.24.17.69.236 03:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you find that that's a problem, get to writing! MrD 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, since memes have had their own pages in Wikipedia quite a number of times. 72.231.145.5 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Furthermore, wikipedia should not be used as a tool to promote non-notable websites. Combination 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge although not worthy of its own article just yet, it’s getting a large amount of hits and should therefore get a mention in the Phoenix Wright article.

or, to put it another way http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=555850 --El cid the hero 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge It's a popular fansite that is used a lot, but I don't think it's so complicated that it deserves it own article.


 * kep noo noooo what ru doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! keep thies articale is very important. on forums i go there many people yea check out this this is objection and is very funny hahaha makes me laugh all the timea nd those links prove alrady its notable. sso yeah..... keeeeep!!!!!!!!!!! Gyakugene 02:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Gyakugene (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Keep Seems to be popular enough to be notable. DanPMK 11:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Very notable, seems to be quite literaly blitzing many large forums. AthlonBoy 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge It's literally blitzing? Literally? Wow, as impressive and physically impossible as that is, I think the site should probably just get mention in the Phoenix Wright article for now...
 * Delete - In no way does this in any way meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and verifiability. Much content of the article as it stands is original research as well.  At most, this gets a mention in the main article.  Wickethewok 15:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepIt is notable enough to keep,it's been in knowledge on runescape community which has 74,000 members. This is why I don't like wikipedia, it's full of ignorant fools who don't know anything but regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.32.83 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep or merge Yes it's a bit of a silly phenomenon, but it's notable enough to keep around one way or another. EASports 20:48, 3 August 2006 (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.