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.
Delete. This is really not notable at all and it is not Wikipedia's job to lend fame and credibility to every silly joke that lands in someone's email box. Whoever wants this information here should make it a separate web page, and wikipedia can link to there as an example of
Internet hoaxes or something. But it really is not encyclopedic in any meaningful sense. I think it's funny too, but come on.
csloat21:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, I'm personally against listing every internet meme out there on Wikipedia, but I've nominated less significant ones that have survived, so this one's a keeper.
Obli (
Talk)
22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedykeep due to previous AfD discussion resulting in a comfortable keep consensus and no delete votes in this one apart from the nominator's so far. In the nominator's defence, that AfD discussion isn't linked to from the article's talk page as seems usual. --
Malthusian(talk)23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah I hadn't seen the previous discussion or I probably would not have listed it with that many "keep" votes already. I did look for it. I think a few people here have suggested a merge to a page about internet jokes; I hope that happens. Having a full article about a silly joke seems to decrease the credibility of wikipedia.--
csloat00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
It's a dead issue but I have to respond to your examples - flat earth and FSM are not just internet phenomena, as silly as they may be, and they are more widespread and significant, and the platypus is a real animal.--
csloat23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
LOL ... and thanks to keeping this on wikipedia you and others will continue to get this crap for years to come. should we have separate wikipedia entries for the spam we get too?--
csloat00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per recent keep. I've added oldafdfull link to previous AFD to the talk page (apparently the title had a real ellipsis character instead of "..."). Csloat, if you would be kind enough to withdraw the nomination, we can save everybody from having to spend time voting on this :). —
Quarl(
talk)2006-01-10 02:43
Z
alright alright, I lose, but you all spent the time and voted already, so theres not much I can do... have fun with your kitty porn ;)--
csloat09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep i mean all though there are a lot of valid points to consider, this article is very informative so there is no real reason to keep voting on this issue. ;)--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat] --comment actually written by
172.198.117.28 --
Malthusian(talk)11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete The image depicted is unsourced and should be deleted as well. Once the image is gone then this article becomes non-notable.
Atrian11:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Good point. The image's copyright status does need to be evaluated. I think it could possibly be considered a public domain image, considering that it has circulated the Net as many times as it has with no fuss about copyright, but
IANAL, and don't fully understand copyright law anyway. --
Blu Aardvark | (talk) |
(contribs)03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Nope: under the Berne copyright convention, you don't need to defend a copyright to maintain your rights. But the faior use case for using the image is very strong indeed, and when it comes to legal action, judges weigh up harm done by violation, which in this case would be nothing at all. ---
Charles Stewart09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Alrighty. I have tagged the image as {{
Non-free fair use in|Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten}}. I don't know if there is a better appropriate rationale for it, and if there is, that should be corrected.
Keep This has been a fixture on different internet forums (including one I admin) for many years (well, "many" relative to an internet phenomenon). Honestly, some of you nominators need to either learn what the under-30 crowd knows, act your age and/or research the internet memes y'all hate so much --
Bobak22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Delete. This is really not notable at all and it is not Wikipedia's job to lend fame and credibility to every silly joke that lands in someone's email box. Whoever wants this information here should make it a separate web page, and wikipedia can link to there as an example of
Internet hoaxes or something. But it really is not encyclopedic in any meaningful sense. I think it's funny too, but come on.
csloat21:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, I'm personally against listing every internet meme out there on Wikipedia, but I've nominated less significant ones that have survived, so this one's a keeper.
Obli (
Talk)
22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedykeep due to previous AfD discussion resulting in a comfortable keep consensus and no delete votes in this one apart from the nominator's so far. In the nominator's defence, that AfD discussion isn't linked to from the article's talk page as seems usual. --
Malthusian(talk)23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah I hadn't seen the previous discussion or I probably would not have listed it with that many "keep" votes already. I did look for it. I think a few people here have suggested a merge to a page about internet jokes; I hope that happens. Having a full article about a silly joke seems to decrease the credibility of wikipedia.--
csloat00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
It's a dead issue but I have to respond to your examples - flat earth and FSM are not just internet phenomena, as silly as they may be, and they are more widespread and significant, and the platypus is a real animal.--
csloat23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
LOL ... and thanks to keeping this on wikipedia you and others will continue to get this crap for years to come. should we have separate wikipedia entries for the spam we get too?--
csloat00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per recent keep. I've added oldafdfull link to previous AFD to the talk page (apparently the title had a real ellipsis character instead of "..."). Csloat, if you would be kind enough to withdraw the nomination, we can save everybody from having to spend time voting on this :). —
Quarl(
talk)2006-01-10 02:43
Z
alright alright, I lose, but you all spent the time and voted already, so theres not much I can do... have fun with your kitty porn ;)--
csloat09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep i mean all though there are a lot of valid points to consider, this article is very informative so there is no real reason to keep voting on this issue. ;)--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat] --comment actually written by
172.198.117.28 --
Malthusian(talk)11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete The image depicted is unsourced and should be deleted as well. Once the image is gone then this article becomes non-notable.
Atrian11:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Good point. The image's copyright status does need to be evaluated. I think it could possibly be considered a public domain image, considering that it has circulated the Net as many times as it has with no fuss about copyright, but
IANAL, and don't fully understand copyright law anyway. --
Blu Aardvark | (talk) |
(contribs)03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Nope: under the Berne copyright convention, you don't need to defend a copyright to maintain your rights. But the faior use case for using the image is very strong indeed, and when it comes to legal action, judges weigh up harm done by violation, which in this case would be nothing at all. ---
Charles Stewart09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Alrighty. I have tagged the image as {{
Non-free fair use in|Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten}}. I don't know if there is a better appropriate rationale for it, and if there is, that should be corrected.
Keep This has been a fixture on different internet forums (including one I admin) for many years (well, "many" relative to an internet phenomenon). Honestly, some of you nominators need to either learn what the under-30 crowd knows, act your age and/or research the internet memes y'all hate so much --
Bobak22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.