Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (memes)/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Initial thoughts

The current proposed criteria seem to just leave it up to a judgement call, same as what we do now. I'm not convinced of the need for such a guideline personally, I think we have WP:V which can help us here. If enough reputable sources aren't talking about the "meme", we don't include it in the encyclopedia. And yes, I reliaze by this standard, most of our current meme articles should probably go away. Friday (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Two things to say in response: 1)WP:V only requires that the info can be verified. Who's to stop someone from making a completely verified article(listing the lyrics, the creators, etc.) on a non-notable web meme? 2) If I recall correctly, Jimbo has made clear that WP:V is not enough by itself to decide whether an article should stay. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
For point 1, verifiability isn't listing the lyrics and the creators. It's listing reliable sources that list those things. WP:V would not let such a "verified" article stay, because that would be original research. MOD 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:V:
Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them.
Which would include internet e-zines, etc. Point being? MOD 17:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Point being that the actual meme can be a verifiable, reliable source. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not all original research. Furthermore, if you go to WP:OR:
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.
Thanks for proving my point exactly. MOD 17:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm proving your point unless I misunderstood it. Articles on internet memes don't have to violate those policies and guidelines to exist is the point I'm trying to make, yet many consider those reasons for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
So I wouldn't bank on that alone. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why only one of those requirements? A non-Internet meme, The Game (game), was recently deleted because even though its existence was clear, no published source describing it could be found. (A source recently was found, complicating the issue.) Why should Internet memes get to get away with no published sources when other kinds of articles don't? It seems to me that a meme which can be written about on Wikipedia needs to meet almost all of those requirements. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the situation of that article completely. How many of these guidelines would it meet here?--Urthogie 15:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, again, it's not an Internet meme, so it doesn't totally apply. It spawns variations all the time by people who don't know the original creator (since nobody knows the original creator), it has an effect outside of the Internet (people disrupt high school and college classes with it), etc. But I don't mean to bring the debate here. My point is that this guideline won't go very far if people see it as allowing articles about unverifiable memes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the situation of the game had anything to do with notability so much as not fulfilling Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Urthogie 11:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is my point. I'm not trying to bring the Game debate here, as I said. I'm using it as an example of where current policy stands. Everything that this policy deals with is more effectively dealt with through WP:V. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems and Thoughts

  • What about older memes that no longer have relevance NOW, but may have in the past? I'm thinking of Prime Number Shitting Bear on this on, which wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of Google hits.
I don't think we should have past google hits as a qualifier. Why? Because its impossible to verify, right?--Urthogie 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying "use past Google hits," but notability doesn't simply disappear. I don't have an answer on how to deal with this, though. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You make an excellent point on just how inappropriate Googlecounts are for testing suitability of coverage in WP. Googlecount reflects the zeitgeist. It could have been notable in 1920, but no longer notable now. Does an article get deleted once the topic becomes popularly forgotten? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How can we keep this objective. How is a meme "classic?" What is "relatively popular?"
I was thinking about that myself. A real issue here is how concrete this should be. On one hand, objectivity makes it more clear. On the other hand, subjectivity allows AFD discussions to allow for more specific, pragmatic consensus development. It's a balance, I guess. Something we have to decide is where that balance is.--Urthogie 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Popularity can be verified with traffic reports and Google tests. A classic status could be attained when high traffic is combined with longevity. MOD 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Popularity is a horrible criteria for encyclopedia coverage. An encyclopedia is not a popularity contest for topics. This is the whole problem with the notion of "notability" as an inclusion criteria. I've seen plenty of topics put on AFD under the argument of NN solely because the submitter (and many deletionists) had never heard of it, but this isolated fact was the result of ignorance (whether cultural, historic, geographic, etc.). Ignorance as a determination of deletability is bad policy. NN as a deletability justification is likewise bad policy. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
No offense Keith, but without notability policies, I could write a verifiable article about myself, using sources like school newspaper sites, and the chess federation's website, I could talk about random bullshit, and verify it too! So with WP:V alone, we're left nowhere.--Urthogie 17:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There are other reasonable worthiness standards, like scarcity of NPOV/RS/V content (and WP:AUTO, and WP:NOT) that would make such an article deleteable. WINP still stands IMO, though. My point is that lack of popularity is not a sensible criteria. Worthiness is not determined by popularity. Popularity is subjective, and subjectivity has no place in an encyclopedia. And by that I mean both in article content as well as article selection. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had my personal meme discussion up for a few months, have you looked into incorporating some of those ideas into this? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at it briefly, but I'll look at it more in depth right now. Thanks for the edits by the way, --Urthogie 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there's some need for guidance in this area. I certainly think I'm notable. Even so, my primary concern when I added myself to Internet Phenomenon was that I'd get accused of a vanity addition. I agree that it's a very slippery topic, and the suggested definition works enough that anyone who meets the criteria are can reasonably considered notable. The harder question is: When can someone be considered notable while achieving fame purely on the Internet? I don't have a good answer for this one; my own experience was that my fame took off in the real world fairly quickly after it did on the Internet (my first appearance on national TV was just a couple of weeks after the story broke on Slashdot). Jay Maynard 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This page deals with memes moreso than real people. For notability when it comes to people, the relevant guideline is at WP:BIO. I advise you to help make the guideline there stronger. Thanks, --Urthogie 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with proposal

The criteria "There are hundreds of thousands of results for it on a Google search", is very bad. One single person, interested in promoting a keyword, can get hundreds of thousands of hits. Remeber Google only shows the first thousand hits, and the "unique" figure, is a subset of that. Non-unique "raw" hits (which is what this criteria refers to), is what goes over a thousand, and it's impossible to know how many of those are real. Googles hit count includes urls for links to non-existant pages (even invalid domains), so that doesn't make much sense. I'm a broken record on Google hit counts, but it seems people sill haven't heard of something called infinite namespace. I think being written about in multiple reliable sources, particular those not specializing in internet culture, is about the only criteria worth having. --Rob 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rob, thanks for commenting. I agree with you that duplicate hits should be ignored, and there are ways of getting rid of them with boolean searching.--Urthogie 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, there is not an effective means of doing this. Term X could have twice the results of Term Y, and be used far less. --Rob 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you supply an example of a non-notable meme that has promoted its way into having more than 200k of non-duplicate hits? Thanks, --Urthogie 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This is circular logic. I'm sure if there's 200K hits you'ld consider that proof it's notable. Also, the point is anybody is able to manipulate the number of Google hits, to over 200K, if they wish. Do you disagree with me, that search engine results can, and are, manipulated to this extent? --Rob 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Update: I just re-read your point. Google *never* display a unique hit count over one thousand. The unique results are a subset of the first thousand results. No results beyond one thousand are available. Even the term "Microsoft", gets just less then a thousand unique results. You're test is impossible to perform. So, I throw back the challenge: show me any Google result, that shows more than one thousand unique (non-duplicate) results. --Rob 17:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, I never knew about this. I'll remove the google thing.--Urthogie 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
But WP:RS is still somewhat broken in the sense that internet-based sources are rarely reliable, and, often, internet meme articles are falsely thrown into WP:OR, even though basic primary sources exist. Certainly, branching out a subset of internet-based information is a worthy goal, no? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you explain?--Urthogie 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that a true internet meme that has acheived meme status should be determinable by its reference in other internet sources. Not solely blog coverage and spreading of the meme, but adaptation of the meme. If I put a potential meme out in an email forward or a web page, and no one picks it up, it's not a meme. But if it does get picked up, especially outside my circles, it's a meme. However, it doesn't have to spread to the ends of the earth, or even the English-speaking earth, or even a particular country (even the US!) to be worthy. It could be a meme that has only spread within the city of, say, Seoul. It's still a meme, I'd say. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
That would establish which articles are truly memes, but not whether those memes are notable.--Urthogie 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Tweak to other people criteria

What do you think of changing the statement "To be a classic, a meme must have spawned variations created by people that have never met the author of the original meme in person." to something more restrictive, like created by people who never met the original's author and are part of a different community? So for example the kitten would work because it originated on Something Awful (or where-ever it did) and was taken up by Fark- two seperate communities. --maru (talk) contribs 05:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of a different Internet community. Something starting on Slashdot and spreading to Fark and Something Awful would seem to qualify. You'd have to be careful in defining "community" for this to work. Jay Maynard 10:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll update it to say "were not an aquaintance, online, or in person"--Urthogie 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is an important point. I'd imagine that to differentiate between "communities" you'd have to sperate them as "communities that do not share a significant amount of common members". E.g.: if meme X is all the rage on Something Awful, and 60% of Something Awful members happen to be Fark members as well, then the meme shouldn't qualify as having spread to Fark in this case as it may not have spread outside of a single community, as it were. --Doug (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft non-notable

I rm by comment the note that Google returns only 129 unique hits for Microsoft. While I might like to think it true, the devil of Redmond has a bigger footprint than that. I saw over 2 million hits on my own (not, admittedly, guaranteed unique); I followed the supplied link to find hits > 700.

Please note that Google does not use the term "unique"; they use instead, in opposition, "very similar". Often expanding a search leads to extremely similar results but I suspect that out of 2M hits there are nothing like 1.9M near-duplicates. John Reid 17:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Google test, duplicate seems to be the right word. It actually limits duplicates to a 1000, according to that page. Anyways, getting more than 700 hits is relatively easy. Hell, a search for Urthogie gets more than 10 thousand.--Urthogie 18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As I understand, what Google does, it first finds the first one thousand most relevant results, ignoring the rest. Then, it produces a subset of just those thousand to produce the "unique" result (or as you said "similiar"). So, how many unique results are returned, depends to a great extent on how highly duplicate pages rank. If lots of duplicates rank in the top one thousand, the unique count is made low. Typically most secondary duplicates don't rank high, but that's not a rule by any means. So, in theory if the top one thousand results were were duplicates of the page, you'ld get only one unique result. Also, I note, that the number of results for "Microsoft" varies signficantly depending on whether you put "Microsoft" in quotes. This search for "Microsoft" does yield only 119 unique results. Doing the test with quotes, is good for an example, as most memes are probably multiple words, needing quotation marks. --Rob 18:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yet another reason not to rely on google-- if multi-word memes are (dis)favored by google and single word memes aren't, thats not equal treatment.--Urthogie 19:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Trojan horse

This reads to my eye like another Trojan horse proposal: It appears to set limits to an activity in order to open a door to that activity.

As matters stand there is a fair amount of opposition to memecruft and any questionable article is sure to get a roasting at AfD. I think this proposal will only provide ammunition to supporters. John Reid 17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong that any questionable article gets a roasting on AfD. Several have survived, just because people like their animation or music. That's why I began this policy. As far as this making deletion harder, could you please supply an example of a non-notable meme that would survive under this policy?--Urthogie 18:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of opposition to plenty of "cruft." The point of this is to introduce guidelines to make sure notable memes stay in and non-notable ones stay out, as opposed to the hodgepodge that occur at present. And WP:BEANS is worthless in this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. WP:BEANS. Meanwhile if you think anything has escaped its turn at the wheel you're free to nominate it. John Reid 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole problem is that every time its given a turn at the wheel, there's no concrete policy. Its essentially an unfair system, a democracy, where popularity is the deciding factor. That's what we're trying to avoid with this policy.--Urthogie 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This page has good potential. We do need common criteria. Currently, the only thing used consistently in AFD is the seriously flawed Google Test. We need clear rules on notability, and especially on verifiability; which can be referred to, in AFD discussions. People need a common basis for evaluating such articles. It's a mistake to refight the same points on each AFD, when they should be settled centrally. --Rob 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Policy is like the legislative branch, and AFD is like the judicial, so to speak.--Urthogie 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong opposition to "classic" criterion

This criterion is so weak as to let almost anything in. And a year old hardly makes something a "classic" even on the internet. --JoshuaZ 03:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you aren't familiar with Internet time. :) Maybe one year is not enough, but two or three sure are. AYB for example is so two years ago. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What? Naw, AYB is more like 4 or 5 years ago. --maru (talk) contribs 03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you supply an example of a non-notable meme that it would allow in? Remember that to be a classic it must have spawned variations.--Urthogie 10:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Not off the top of my head, but "variations" is a very weak and ill-defined issue, and how popular do the variations themselves need to be? Too vague and too broad. JoshuaZ 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
How about I add another rule for classics: "Must have at one point fulfilled one of the other criteria"? I'll add that, tell me what you think.--Urthogie 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My concern is the "remembered 100 years in the future" guideline. Most memes can gain rapid popularity but are fundamentally transient. I think the "one year old" rule may ensure that the meme in question has sufficient longevity but I'd be interested to see examples of memes that would meet this criterion now. —Whouk (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The rule actually doesn't require that they're remembered much later. It states that it has to have been notable at one point in time, and has to be at least a year old. Most web memes that are "classics", are actually notable in other ways-- the rule in classics exists so the most important ones of today are still notable whenever people forget about them.--Urthogie 18:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, these guidelines are ridiculously easy... If you want to create guidelines for memes to be listed on a memeopedia, by all means, but this is an encyclopedia, we need, much, MUCH, MUCH stricter rules than this. I will strongly oppose any attempt to try to treat this as a real guideline. We should follow Wikipedia:Notability (websites), as that not only is a real guideline but also much more sane and reasonable. Heck, we should just forward the page to that one. DreamGuy 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy's language is a bit stronger than I'd use but I agree with the premise about the page. The standards are set far too low for this topic. Memes and fads are transient. The ones that belong in an encyclopedia should be only the ones that stand the test of time. I believe the right standard are those which are remembered and written about ten years later. Rossami (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, WP:WEB fails to address internet only memes. With notable web-only content, the ability of the information to cross the line into "mainstream" or printed use is much lower, and WP:WEB doesn't address that at all, which is a major problem when it comes to AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for the others in this discussion, but my point of view is that there is no such thing as a "notable, internet-only meme". If it hasn't crossed out of its starting community and affected someone else, it does not belong in the encyclopedia yet. Only the ones which have already crossed out and have already proven their staying power ought to be included. Rossami (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's apply it to other areas. For instance, WP:MUSIC is a guideline I'm quite familiar with. A band may not sell a single album, and never as much as make the newspaper calendar, but is nevertheless a popular touring act, and would meet the notability guidelines for touring under WP:MUSIC. Given that internet memes are something that is popular and notable in a small, yet significant way/community, shouldn't we have a guideline that reflects that? I hesitate to add them to WP:WEB, as it's really geared more toward acutal web sites and not content, per se, but it's certainly worth discussing further in ocntext of what they are, right? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a clearer cross-genre example might be neologisms. A word may be known in its small community yet not be appropriate for the encyclopedia until it breaks out past that starting community. Rossami (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Flawed premise

This page operates under a flawed premise. There is a consensus on what constitutes an internet meme or phenomenon, it's at WP:WEB. Hiding talk 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Noone uses WP:WEB for meme discussions. It's completely ludicrous that it was edited to expand upon its original consensus. The consensus was that WP:WEB made sense for websites, not all web content. Apparently, people have expanded this policy and I don't see anything like a poll as to whether its expansion was acceptible.--Urthogie 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There was never a consensus that WP:WEB was only for web-sites, care to point me to that? As to holding a poll, wikipedia is not a democracy. The guideline evolved from discussion and use, with the proposal advertised at the village pump, on the widely transcluded {{cent}} and a rfc was put up. It has already been used in meme discussions, and there is a meme discussion on its talk page. However, I still register my opposal of this proposal along with everyone else. It deviates too far from WP:V to be of objective use, using too many value judgements which can be gamed. Hiding talk 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It's relatively new, and is becoming increasingly concrete. Opposal isn't a word, and noone has so blatantly opposed this as you. Others have actually given constructive criticism. Perhaps if you could be more specific, it would help.--Urthogie 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Opposal is a word in my neck of the woods, so it'll do me. I figure those people for whom it ain't a word will get the gist of what I mean. Looking at this page I saw most people offering negative comment, hence my words. As to my objections, it deviates too far from WP:V by allowing unverifiable concepts to determine notability; this weakens WP:V which is one of the three central planks of Wikipedia. The criteria which cause concern are:
  • The meme was at one point relatively popular outside of Internet culture.
This allows too many subjective values, namely one point and relatively and popular.
I'll update "one point" to be more clear and objective. The subjective part is where it says "popular outside of internet culture." I'll address that.--Urthogie 09:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The meme has been mentioned in a notable source outside of Internet culture.
This doesn't really explain itself well; if it means a reliable source it should say so.
That's what I meant to say, I'll add that.--Urthogie 09:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The meme had a notable effect outside of the Internet.
How do we determine this? Another subjective clause. To me, from what I can understand of the proposal, it offers only subjective qualifications to the verifiability chain. (By the way, noone isn't a word either. ;p )Hiding talk 21:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats not subjective-- thats to say, if it resulted in something that deserved an article outside of it. I'll make that more clear.--Urthogie 09:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I updated it to fit your criticisms. What problems do you think remain with it?--Urthogie 09:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Hiding, that helped crystalize a number of the problems I have with this proposed guideline. JoshuaZ 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree Hiding, this page is worse than useless, it encourages people to justify that their stuff is notable when it doesn't meet any real guidelines. DreamGuy 22:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Its a policy in making. It doesn't encourage anything because it isn't accepted yet. Sheesh.--Urthogie 09:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is key

  • No, I still can't support this, I seemed to have misread the proposal and the classic definition drives a coach and horses through the verifiability chain. Quite simple to me, a meme is notable if there is third party, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Not if someone has copied it or it's been a year since it happened. If it's notable outside internet culture, it will have the coverage. If it's notable inside internet culture, it will have the coverage. Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Any attempt to undermine it should not be allowed to succeed; if we allow the classic definition for memes, then why not adopt them for bloggers, or for webcomics, or for election candidates or for schools or for judo club members or for loaves of bread or even for wikipedians? If I don't get an article after a year of editing, then a meme shouldn't get an article after a year of existence. If I am not akin to a wikipedian meme, then what is? Hiding The wikipedian meme 07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I say Hiding's a meme, but User:Foo claims he's not. Where does this proposal leave us? Well, looking at the guideline as it exists right now exactly where WP:WEB would: Looking for verification. I don't see anything that compels me in this proposal.
      brenneman{L} 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I repeat, there are ways to get memes in without violating WP:V. The issue here isn't verifability, but notability, because people believe that memes aren't notable enough for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Maybe that's because most memes are ephemeral; it will be years before we can judge their true impact on culture. I have a problem with the over-emphasis on current pop-culture. A catch-phrase that is popular among people who are active on the Internet may be notable in certain segment of Internet culture, but Wikipedia is not just about the Internet. First and foremost, we have to extablish verifiability. If something is verifiable, then we can argue about notability. And the arguments on notability can only be based on what is verifiable. That's me view, anyway. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Timing

Although I don't agree with the many rather harsh comments above, I do think this page is putting the cart before the horse.

Most deletion guidelines have arisen out of a body of AfD/VfD precedent, gradually codified. In other words, people observe the deletion debates, get an idea of what is and isn't acceptable, and then agree on a way of putting into words a consensus which already exists. I seem to recall that this was the case with WP:WEB, which I think started out in someone's userspace (correct me if I'm wrong). The problem which this page faces is that it is trying to forge a consensus which does not already exist in practice. I would recommend that the proponents of this guideline continue to participate in meme-related AfDs, and collect a body of precedent for each proposed criterion (revising as needed). Then, over time, this page (or a userfied version) will come to reflect a genuine existing consensus, and there will probably be much less objection to its being included among the established precedents.

I thank the originator of this page for a noble effort. Please don't give up!  :-) -- Visviva 02:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We have been. This is a result of there being no real way to handle memes, and noting that WP:WEB fails at dealing with internet only non-website content. I've had the link in my signature for a number of months now, and this is the next step with someone who's been able to pursue it recently while I have not. There is no precedent because people want WP:WEB to qualify and ignore the protests of those of us who recognize its limitations. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this guideline is that its genesis is in the phrase "WP:WEB fails at dealing with internet only non-website content." We really should not be trying to tailor guidelines to keep things in, and the discussion at wp:web convinces me that any truly notable "meme" already passes that guideline. - brenneman{L} 08:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussion at WP:WEB proved the opposite to me, actually. It showed that, even with the guideline in place, people have a predisposed distate toward memes, for one, as proven by deleted memes that would borderline meet the guideline, and that there are some internet-only memes (Icy Hot Stuntaz comes to mind) that would not meet WP:WEB, but are most certainly notable within its area. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

a general comment to all parties involved

1. Please dont use words like deletionist or inclusionist to describe what this does. It's inaccurate and doesn't prove anything-- we have people from both sides calling it both deletionist and inclusionist. Try to handle this it on its individual merits, instead of some inflexible wiki-ideology.

2. Wikipedia:Verifiability is not enough for articles. If it were, then I could write a verifiable article on anyone simply by referencing the cheese contest they got third place in (cheese contest could be in one of the many town newspapers, and/or online) , the fact that they worked as a janitor for the state of Idaho (government workers are registered there), the fact that their favorite color is blue (verified by their own website, which actually is a reliable source on a subject). People who cling only to Wikipedia:Verifiability alone are simply irrational. It allows for my three year old cousin to have a page. Please stop bringing up this valueless argument. As can be easily observed, contrary to the irrational belief that notability doesn't matter-- it does.

3. We need a (better) policy for memes. I'm not saying this as an inclusionist or a deletionist, but as someone who truly thinks policy is the way to prevent pure democracy from taking over at AFD's. WP:WEB has sorely failed when it comes to meme voting. It's almost never brought up there for memes.

Thanks for considering these things. Commence policy building!--Urthogie 12:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree we must ask for more then "mere" veriability, verifiability is no small thing (as you suggest). If you read WP:WEB you'll see, the central point *isn't* notabiity, as the term is normally used at Wikipedia, but verifiability. Awards and such, are about verifiability. But, the thrust of WP:WEB (like WP:CORP) is what independent coverage there has been in truly reliable sources. That's all about verifiabiity. The vast majority of memes fail this test, miserably, due to lack of *proper* verifiability. They fail in the same way, the vast much of "three year old cousins" also fail the verifiability test (as verifiability requires *reliable* published sources). I'm somewhat losing interest (which I had) in this page, as there simply isn't enough concern here for verifiability. It's meaningless discussing issues of "what's classic", or how long something has been around, or what influence it's had; if we don't have a reliable way of verifying such information properly. Most meme articles seem to do nothing but show example web sites to (improperly) verify the information. Just as a personal web site *doesn't* reliably verify one's favorite color if there's a dispute (e.g. you now say its pink, but others heard you say its green), it also doesn't verify the weird video on it has apread as much as you claim. The prevelensce of memes is pretty much always a debateable point. It always amazes me about how people always talk of how easy verifiability is, and how easy it is to find sources to support facts. But any random search of articles in Wikipdia (meme or non-meme) shows that a majority of articles have few if any truly reliable independent sources. So, verifiability isn't everyting, but it's a bigger thing then you think. -Rob 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong, I could find reliable sources for a janitor-- the state often holds lists of people that it employs. Everyones been photographed once or twice in a newspaper-- you can use their online edition. Neither Wikipedia:Verifiability nor Wikipedia:Reliable sources are enough by themselves.--Urthogie 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
People generally say it's easy to find reliable sources, when talking of hypothetical cases, yet most articles I visit in Category:Internet memes fail to cite any. I'm not saying to ignore notability. I'm saying, let's first put something in about requiring reliable sources, and what that means. This is the common tricky point. For instance, we need to make clear that citing a web site as an example of the meme, is not adequate sourcing. We need respected publications who have actually written in-depth about the topic. -Rob 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the people who made the memes's websites would be notable sources per WP:RS: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing." So contrary to popular belief, WP:RS does allow things to be a source for themself.--Urthogie 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully we agree any article that had that as their best available source should be deleted. -Rob 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
An article requires sourcing in independent, third party sources which meet WP:RS. A primary source can be used to fill out an article, but should never be used as the sole source. Hiding The wikipedian meme 07:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Mainly agree, but bear in mind that coverage in reliable sources is also an indication of notability. If no one reliable bothers to cover something, thats a good sign it isn't notable. JoshuaZ 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
But what's "reliable" in terms of internet-only memes? That's the problem, you're trying to seek notability through verifiability of "reliable sources," but the point of this exercise is to set a standard for notable things that aren't designed to hit the radar of places outside of its target audience. We can verify what a meme is without violating original research and without using third party sources. The problem is figuring out how to figure out its notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem, I believe, is that you are starting from a self-contradictory premise. You said above that "the point of this exercise is to set a standard for notable things that aren't designed to hit the radar of places outside of its target audience." If it hasn't hit the radar outside its target audience, then it can not be notable by definition. Users inside the target audience already know about it and the rest of the world does not (yet) care. When the rest of the world does begin to care (as evidenced by reliable independent sources), then an encyclopedia article becomes appropriate. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We both know that's not the case at all. For instance, are we saying that many rap or hip-hop acts aren't notable if people who don't listen to that style of music don't listen to them? Are fantasy authors, who write for a niche market, suddenly non-notable because most people don't read fantasy novels or aren't aware of them? The rest of the world certainly doesn't care about Brandon Sanderson or some solo project from a member of D12, (two examples who meet the notability requirements, but are unlikely to be known outside of their target audience) but they're certainly notable because of their achievements within their respective genres. There's no legitimate reason why a person without a computer would be aware of something like All Your Base even with the media coverage and references, it doesn't change that it's notable for what it is. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Indded, the internet culture is notable in and of itself. Just as it has some things which become notable to the rest of the world, it also has things that are valuable to it and it alone. The goal of this policy is to identify both types of memes-- the ones that are significant in internet culture, and the ones that are significant to culture period.--Urthogie 06:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
And those which are significant either inside or outside internet culture will have coverage in reliable sources either inside or outside internet culture. Hiding The wikipedian meme 07:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This gives me an idea. Couldn't we make all of wikipedia a lot better if we simplified Wikipedia:Notability to the following nutshell statement: "It must be covered in reliable secondary source."--Urthogie 08:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That is the threshhold. However I, for one, do not believe that everything that can be verified belongs in Wikipedia. In my opinion, we need to apply the concept of 'notability' as something more stringent than is it verifiable? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Notability is definitely valued by the community. That's why we often remove verifiable stuff at AFD.--Urthogie 11:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal for a fresh attempt at writing a notability guideline, and edit it or offer your thoughts on it if you like. It'd be appreciated. Hiding The wikipedian meme 13:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(memes)/Archive1&oldid=1143824478"