Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lizard King (meme)


 * 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   delete. do we have any sources that discuss Lizard King as a meme? Apparantly not so by policy the outcome is clear Spartaz Humbug! 15:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lizard King (meme)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nom for deln for administrative purposes but No opinion on outcome. The nom'd article was ProD'ed two years ago with reason
 * Per WP:NOR, OR and trivia. Flagged for sources and improvement for a while now, sources and improvement have not happened.

Consideration of ProD was cut short by overwriting with a Rdr to Jim Morrison and discarding all content. The very active (tho IMO largely unproductively active) work on the article was silenced with the effect of, but not the process for, an AfD ending in "Del & Rdr w/o Merge". (My interest is limited to my concern for appropriate process in de-facto deletions, where my attention was drawn to it in creating the needed Dab Lizard King; i retitled the nom'd article bcz of the confusing effect of treating The Lizard King as a title distinct from Lizard King.) --Jerzy•t 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes lack of links to an article is given as a deletion cause. In that context, the Dab entry i just remembered to add probably doesn't count. The JM bio lk'd a reference to the article under consideration here -- removed by the editor who overwrote the article with the Rdr; i have not restored a link from the bio to it. I'll do a survey later today of what articles lk to The Lizard King (now Dab and was Rdr, so low result is likely to prove nothing), and consider a search for lks to JM in context of LK mentions. --Jerzy•t 21:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There were 3 such articles and a list, and i've described them below in response to the first delete opinion. --Jerzy•t 06:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - but re-write extensively. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems mainly to be a list of times people have used the word 'lizard' followed by the word 'king' (or 'queen'), which does not a meme make. Declan Clam (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The question deserves more careful consideration than that, e.g., i wouldn't be surprised if most of the games are such cases and should be pitched out of this article (and too bad if their enthusiasts welcomed chances to get them mentioned in WP w/o writing an article on each of them) -- tho
 * "communing" with the LK, in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is clearly about the meme growing out of Morrison's poem, and apparently has linked to this page, appropriately, since before overwrite.
 * The question of the proportion of irrelevant instances does not weigh in the deletion decision; what we need to know is whether what's left is sufficient for a stub on the meme. As further points bearing on that:
 * The Healing Game also has an old link that was appropriate and remains so. The third old lk, from Stephen Nichols, was misdirected, and i've converted it to a red link to the play. The one in Turbonegro was, FWIW, not mis-targeted to here, but IMO the passage it was in was not germane to the article, and i removed that whole section.
 * --Jerzy•t 06:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * weak Keep There seem to be a sufficient number of  clear  examples.    DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge best examples to Jim Morrison. This is not a meme, but an alter ego, like Slim Shady. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot see any evidence that this has been recognized as a "meme". Bundling together lots of examples of the phrase "Lizard King", and then calling it a "meme", seems like original research by synthesis. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:53, 3 November 2009 (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.