Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GameFAQs[edit]

Just edited the spelling to the correct GameFAQs as opposed to GameFAQS.

Tourettes Guy[edit]

What about the tourettes guy?

Cindy Margolis[edit]

Why is she on this page? She's not an internet meme. Did her PR people put her on this page, or did she do it herself? Just like mentioned further down the page: [1], she's just like any number of pornstars trying claim she's some sort of phenomenon. She's more softcore than other pornstars trying this kind of viral marketing, but she still fits the description. She is not an internet phenomenon, just a wanna-be.

Actually, at one time, she held the record for the most downloaded picture on the Internet. I would say anyone who has risen to fame (alright, "C-list" celebrity status) strictly due to the Internet is a good enough candidate for an Internet meme. Wavy G 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
She never was the most downloaded[2], she was just falsely claiming it for as a marketing gimmick[www.ainews.com/Archives/Story938.phtml]. Even if it had been true, it hasn't been relevent for 6 years. and even then, still not a meme. If that title really makes someone an meme, then the holder of the title should be in the article, not Margolis.
The "C-list" standard would qualify thousands of people for inclusion in the list, that shouldn't be. Cory Doctorow, Wil Weaton, Drew Curtis, anyone with a popular website, really.
Also, I wouldn't consider what she does "porn," as she doesn't pose nude. (I'm not defending her; I'd actually much rather look at porn than a bleach-blonde with breast implants in a bikini. I'm just stating the reasoning for her notability). Wavy G 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
She models for photography whose sole function is a mastibatory aid. That's porn. The fact that she hasn't shown everything just makes her a softcore pornstar. But this is besides the point. The anecdote linked to above used pornstars as an example of someone who'd put themselves in this article just as a marketing gimmick. Margolis is another example of the same kind of action. It's an abuse of Wikipedia in an attempt to generate PR.
I disagree. Although, of course, I don't know if she added her name to this list herself, or if it was done by anyone working for her PR staff, it is a fact that the main catalyst for making her name and image known in the first place was via the Internet. Yes, at one point in time she was adjudged "The Most Downloaded Woman on the Internet", and she had a well-known spat with Danni Ashe over the veracity of that claim. Eventually, due to sheer weight of statistics in her favor, Danni won the title. Soon after, the now-defunct magazine Yahoo! Internet Life (which had created the title in the first place), changed their policy and instituted a new category: "Most Searched-For Woman", which was won by Britney Spears. If I recall correctly, the Guinness Book of World Records had two seperate categories, one for "Most Downloaded from a Paysite" (which was given to Danni Ashe), and "Most Downloaded from a Free Site" (which was given to Cindy Margolis). These are documented facts, and as such, it is not an abuse of Wikipedia to talk about them. Now, about what Cindy's images are used for, that is neither here nor there. She is not a porn star, she is a bikini model. To the best of my knowledge, she has never posed nude. And when it comes to masturbatory aids, some people get off of the pictures in the Victoria's Secret catalogs -- are you going to say that we shouldn't write about VS? Bottom line is, Cindy Margolis deserves to be on this list. -- Jalabi99 12:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Jalabi, most of your claims contradict Wikipedia articles on the same, like one of the ones I linked to. If you think those articles are inaccurate, you should correct them.
I might just do that. The facts that I wrote about above are (or at least should be) quite well-known, and as I said before, easily verifiable. -- Jalabi99 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, obviously this person has some kind of agenda here. Whoever it is must really want to rid their wholesome little Internet meme list of this filthy smut like "Cindy Margolis" (GASP!). The whole, "she models for photography whose sole function is a mastibatory (sic) aid" comment is very telling. I really could care less who's on this list and who isn't. But the question of why her came up, and I answered, plain and simple. Regardless if it's "porn" or if it isn't (somehow this sidelined into a semantics debate at some point), she is widely known for her pictures on the Internet. THAT'S WHAT MAKES HER AN "INTERNET PHENOMENON." Wavy G 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Come on. Read for content please. (Maybe my links are broken, is that the case? Because otherwise I don't understand why you lack information you've been provided with.)
Your links aren't broken; I chose not to click on them. I took what you said at face value. So she's not the most downloaded woman, like she claimed to be. I understand and accept that. However, that doesn't undo the fact that she has already become an Internet meme. Wavy G 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I've pointed out how "filthy smut" belongs on the list. If anyone should be in this article by being the most downloaded woman, it'd be the person who is and has been (another pornstar), not the person who never was the most downloaded. You're projecting a prude agenda on me, when from over here it looks like you have one (replacing a pornstar with someone you don't consider a pornstar).
Look, no one is forsaking Danni Ashe for Cindy Margolis. It's obvious you're on some kind of anti-Cindy Margolis campaign. Why, I don't know, nor do I care. Danni Ashe is probably just as deserving to be on this list as Margolis. The solution to that is simple: you see that little button at the top of EVERY ARTICLE that says "Edit this page"? Click on it. And add Danni Ashe. Add whatever you feel needs to be on there to your heart's content. Just because she's not already on the list doesn't mean she doesn't belong there.
However, as far as Margolis is concerned, what's done is done. She is an Internet meme, whether you feel she deserves to be or not. If she was deceptive about her status as "most downloaded woman" on the Internet, and has since risen to fame, I'm afraid there's no fix for that one. If I had a time machine and a paddle, I could probably take care of that for you, but what's done is done. Wavy G 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
(Is this SOP around her? To bully people with accusations of agendas and what-not until they agree with what you want the facts to be? I know that's what the press has been saying, but I didn't really think that was the case. I'm shocked that it is being done here, and even more shocked that it's being done in an attempt to keep viral marketing.)
HUH???
Your "plain and simple" answer for "why her" makes thousands and thousands more qualified for the article than her. Your answer tells why thousands of other people should be in the article before she ever is, which means your answer for "why her" does not answer "why her". Ten of thousands of people are widely known for their pictures on the Internet. THAT'S WHAT MAKES HER NO MORE PHENOMENAL THAN ANY OF THEM.
You can name thousands and thousands of people who have become more famous than Cindy Margolis because of the Internet? Well, by all means, feel free to add them to the list. This is Wikipedia. If you want something changed, feel free to change it. I just hope you've got a lot of spare time on your hands. However, that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees with you won't go right back and undo your changes.
And like I said, I could care less who is and who isn't on this list. I'm not the one campaigning for or against anyone here. Wavy G 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What about this guy?[edit]

This guy, he's a meme, but I don't know who:File:Www.maj.com/gallery/docthory/gifs/b4-pic13.gif

Red vs. Blue meme?[edit]

I don't think Red vs. Blue should be in this list. Sure it's mildly popular. But for my definition of internet meme, it has to be something that is inexplicably popular. Red vs. Blue is mildly popular because it's mildly good. It's pushed mainly by the people that make Red vs. Blue while most other memes are community based surges.

Enjoying a level of popularity doesn't make it a meme.

I say delete it from the list. FlameHead 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends how we're defining an internet meme. If it's merely something that's extremely popular, sure RvB belongs, but then we could add Google and Yahoo to the list, couldn't we? and why not? Myspace is on the list, isn't it? Should Youtube be here? I think we may need a better definition of what we consider a true meme. Most of the things on the list possess a cult status of sorts, or a particular sense of humor to grasp. I dunno, it's all a bit etheral. Elijya 18:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sites like yahoo are a bit too big to say the whole thing is a meme.

They are not "memes" at all! They are commercial online search services.

The article said red vs. blue became an internet phenomenon should I think it should be in the list. Benjida 02:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Edward Norton[edit]

Supposedly on this list because of this site: www.geocities.com/thrush213/ Norton Rabbit page. Never heard of it, the website is minimal (some pictures and a looping song) and it reeks of a vanity link. Can anyone shed more light if this is indeed a valid meme? Elijya 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of this phenom before reading it here. I took it for face value, but after checking, I can't find anything to verify it. All kinds of Ed Norton fan sites, but that's nothing that any other celebrity has. Nothing on Edward Norton article about it either. I say delete it; if it's for real, someone will add it back, and have to explain it. Wavy G 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tourette's Guy[edit]

This is an obvious fake. Looks like somebody trying to make a shocking video, and failing miserably. Not funny.66.161.184.138 07:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

totally irrelevant to it's meme-ness. i'm putting it back up. -Joeyramoney 01:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It was already voted as an AfD because of its lack of notability. What is the rationale for adding it ? Sandy 15:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers[edit]

Isn't he notable, if only for the hoax by "Allen Peppers"; see WP:ANI#Brian Peppers? Septentrionalis 05:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not notable in the least. We can also look at the issue from the standards of good taste perspective. Peppers as a notable figure is a losing proposition anyway you slice it. Find yourselves a new poor bastard to be cruel to. --AStanhope 06:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
no, he's quiteb a bit more notable than the majority of people on here. remember that wikipedia does not censor its' material? this was a tremendous lapse of judgement on jimbo's part. -Joeyramoney 18:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
why is it cruel to simply observe and state that OTHERS are cruel? Might as well delete the holocaust entry, if that's your criteria Elijya 09:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Peppers is a more notable internet phenomenon than at least a quarter of the others listed on this page. He's even been mentioned www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/03/43e31129220d1 in a recent newspaper article specifically as an internet phenomenon. I can see that people don't want him to be an internet phenomenon, and I find it somewhat distasteful myself, but this page should be in the business of documenting reality, not attempting to remake it the image we think it ought to have. --Delirium 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"Standards of good taste" sounds pretty subjective to me. See WP:NPOV. He should certainly at least be mentioned here, if we are going to redirect the article to this page. Turnstep 14:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian Peppers is a notable Internet Phenomenon, no matter how much I hate seeing that horrifying picture time and time again.Wavy G 08:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

even if we can't post an article on the poor guy, why can't we include him on the list? he is one of the most notable ips there is. i can't fathom why good taste should interfere with encyclopedic content. -Joeyramoney 18:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

i was following the debate at AfD. the general concensus was a mention on this list was sufficient but not an entire article. (which i personally don't agree with... but whatever.) i vote to re add him to this list, as long as wiki-sanitizers agree to stop censoring things they find distasteful. here is the last (and quite tasteful) text i could find. would someone with more balls than me agree to post it.

*'''Brian Peppers''' — A registered sex offender in [[Ohio]] with a physical disability. www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp

done. please people, he's worth mentioning. leave the entry be. -Joeyramoney 01:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okkay, folks, please leave him listed; that seems to be the consensus both here and over on the Talk:Brian Peppers page. Jay Maynard 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why the Feb 07 deadline? Elijya 14:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Because, per Jimbo, the article will not be recreated before then. See the Brian Peppers deleted page. Jay Maynard 14:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Brian Peppers talk page deleted!?!?!?! Johhny-turbo 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Jimbo said so. End of story. --Planetary 06:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"i **** on first date"[edit]

i think that the infamous image of a young fat kid with a lunchbox and a photoshopped teeshirt that reads "i f*ck on first date" is fairly notable. it seems pretty well known. what's the consensus for this being included? i've seen it much more than a lot of these other images featured. -Joeyramoney 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also seen this everywhere, on almost every forum I visit, on numerous websites, etc, but beyond the immediate chuckle, there is no extended humor or cult status. I don't suggest adding it. Mr d00d! 10:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The original pic shows him with an pictureserver.funnyjunk.com/pics2/alf.jpg Alf shirt.--Wasabe3543 05:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. But still, that doesn't change its notability (no more than "Leeroy Jenkins," which many people have said was staged, but is still considered a phenomenon). Wavy G 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
He's called images.google.com/images?q=svenno Svenno and was invented on the B3ta image board. He's a bandwagon/cliche/meme, whatever you want to call it. There are many hundreds of derivative Svenno pictures, especially Alf holding a svenno lunchbox. 195.173.23.111 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole "No article, no Phenomenon" debate[edit]

Let's talk about this. I think this whole "No article, no Phenomenon" is horrible logic. Just because deletionists don't want some of these things to have articles doesn't mean they shouldn't be included here. Also, I was following Brian Pepper's wikipedia article's through its deletion and what the presumed concensus was that a listing here on this list was good enough.

The Pokemon kid? The GI Joe PSAs?! C'mon! These HAVE to stay on the list!!

Sparsefarce 00:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the basic idea of wikipedia are notability and verifiability. As it was repeatedly discussed in various "List of..." articles, it is very difficult to ensure both of them, as well as to monitor vandalism of many small things in a long list.

Second, if something does not warrant an article, how in the heck it may be a phenomeon worth inclusion. Today there are hundreds of thousands of pornstars circulating the 'net. Each of them may claim to me an internet phenomenon. Who and where will decide this? Votes for deletion is the only serious decision tool. 3-4 persons who monitor this article, excuse me, no disrespect, but it is a bias.

Third, isn't it time to reconsider the inclusion into this list? I would understand listing of something that made an impact on community or became a generic phenomenon, like trolling, blogs, etc. Numa Numa OK, but copycats not. Any thoughts?

As for Brian Pepper, IMO the voting was misguided. It is OK to lump minor things into one article, like, Glossary of darts or List of terms associated with diabetes, if theyu pertain to some well-defined area. It is totally other to indiscriminatively collect everything into one article with the sole criterion that more than 200,000 people watched this thing (or something like that). mikka (t) 01:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as something complies with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:Verifiability, it deserves a mention, I believe. An article? Not unless it is notable, highly citable, and has enough objective information to warrant an article. However, it's a different thing to add something to a list. These debates are gray areas, and thus they can become heated. Usually, in this case, a merge to a list is appropriate. Crazyswordsman 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Then put me into the list. I am a f*ng verifiable internet event with a nice round 339,000 www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mikkalai&btnG=Google+Search google hits who is known as a Polish KGB spy, anti-Socialist troll, many more, and best of all: IRREDENTIST and CHAUVINIST Communist ANTI-ROMANIAN plus ANTI-SEMIT VANDAL. Never mind. I think I get your idea. Now, please explain me how WP:Verifiability can be verified for, say, "Pokemon Kid" I deleted and one of you restored? Where are the independent third party reputable references to confirm that he indeed hit the net hard? mikka (t) 04:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

t3h BEAST[edit]

Stop delete this post t3h BEAST have had a major influence on the contemporary culture and phenomenon of the internet!!

It's not deleted. The last two time you added it to the top, it was already further down the page. I suggest you 1. Calm down. 2. Log in and get a user name. 3. Don't add comments talking to other editors into articles. That's what the talk pages are for. BabuBhatt 04:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment that this person deleted. I would also like to note that t3h BEAST is largely known for his superiority over the Internet in underground MUD games. Please note that I do not agree with the actions of the original poster, but I do believe t3h BEAST deserves recognition. I have spoken to the true Internet surfers, and I have voyaged into the heartland, and they have told me t3h BEAST is an unsung hero for his superior work. I would like to request that t3h BEAST be undeleted and moved to the bottom of the page as he deserves at least some recognition. Wayetender 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, your Beastliness, find it in your benevolent heart to forgive me for deleting your Holy post.Wavy G 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

what the bleeding hell is t3h beast?!?

Sparsefarce 21:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A ridiculous combo of letters and a number that turns up one site on a Google search, yet somehow qualifies as an "Internet phenomenon." Prove it or lose it. BabuBhatt 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Background of t3h BEAST - most notable for his creation of 'BEAST Drink' that rapidly multiplies the power of the user (for a definite amount of time) for physically demanding activities such as Russian Soccer. t3h BEAST currently residing on earth. Being a person who prefers anonimity, t3h BEAST maintains a low profile using many pseudonyms, one of which include Mahir Çağrı. Despite having a low key lifestyle he maintains a huge, if mostly unrecognized, influence on the contemporary culture and phenomenon of the internet. An intellectual powerhouse, t3h BEAST is widely recognized by his bands of follower (as well as many other enlightened folks) as the person who opened the floodgates of internet fads that includes Numa Numa, Star Wars Kid and Leeroy Jenkins.
I will try to discuss the chronology of t3h BEAST to the best of my knowledge. It first began in the early 1990's when the popular game known as Altered Beast for the NES came out. This game featured a character known for his beastly skills. Here is a synopsis of the game:

Apparently, an evil wizard kidnapped some God�s wife (daughter?). This god, seeking vengeance, has brought you back to life to go after him in the underworld. Along the way, you can defeat certain enemies and gather special blue orbs, which power up your character. Collect 3 of them and your character will transform into a mighty animal warrior (Tiger, Bear, Pterodactyl, etc).

Later, the growth of the Broadband reveloution resulted in an uncharacteristic growth of this character. The popular MMORPG Dark Age Of Camelot was created by Mythic software, which presnted a character known as Beast in the caves of Hibernia, a realm within the game. Many usergroups referred to this MOB as "t3h BEAST." t3h BEAST was the center for most jokes and was considered one of the high points of the social weaving of the fabric of the game. Later, various fansites openned (such as [omfgbeast.ytmnd.com omfg beast site]) grew in popularity. Popular IRC servers also refer to t3h BEAST as a supremely intelligent and powerful figure, with many devout followers elevating him to the status equals to that of an omnipotent. Although a variant of the true t3h BEAST, many broadband surfers (especially those who use ADSL) use the mistyping of the name, The Beast, to refer to various films and entertainment sources, such as [www.ths.nu/beast The Beast Magazine].
A rare picture of t3h BEAST holding his 'BEAST Drink', or what many agree to be of his origin, is available at [www.trygve.com/monsterdrink01.jpg].
If you still feel this is not noteworthy, despite a plethora of information supporting this claim, I urge you to think long and hard before deleting t3h BEASTs entry. -Wayetender 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wavy G, I would like to note that while this entry is under dispute, it should not be removed until an agreement has been reached. Please review the Wikipedia Dispute resolution guidelines:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession.

Thank you for your cooperation. -Wayetender 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see it, this is not a dispute. I would even go so far as to say its inclusion is vandalism. Its tone is clearly not serious. Moreover, it is non-notable and unverifable. Its entry on this this is not a point of view - it's simply wrong. --Hamiltonian 20:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hamiltonian, this is rediculous. I have Rved the edit, the long explanation that wayetender gives contains no real evidence. There's a YTMND page based off of a video game; An (unrelated) indie mag fansite; an assertion that his psuedonym is the strange (and likely unrelated) Mahir Çağrı; and a picture from Trygve Lode's site of someone holding Monster Energy drink. The addition sounds like it was written by a twelve year old, and as far as I can tell by the 114 google results for "t3h BEAST" this is an occaisional forum poster, and a wikipedia talk page dispute. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 22:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of this "t3h". I will revert and suggest other editors do the same. BabuBhatt 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read it carefully you will notice that Wayetender have said that the name of t3h BEAST have gradually evolved to 'The Beast' due to many mistyping by people who refer to him. Gradually many people refer to him simply as 'The Beast'. Admist this chaos, the original name was swept into the abyss. A google search of his commonly used name of 'The Beast' yields in excess of 80 million hits. Before jumping into conclusion and deleting entrees, I believe we should have a healthy discussion and stick to the wikipedia rules noted by Wayetender.

- monstar83457

I respect your opinion and hope you do the same with mine. As a result of this discussion I will make a category at the bottom of the page of accomodate t3h BEAST. - monstar83457

I'm reverting once more, until you can prove this fella exists. I think if the results for him (not just any "beast", as google ignores the "the" in your search and as such you will get any page with "beast" in it) can be proven (ie. you or Wayetender links to them here) we'll be a lot more receptive. Give me 2 examples, one of his "power increasing drink" and one of him introducing the numa numa dance, pre-spring 2005. You do that, I think you might be able to meet WP:Notability. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

i can't believe you're going to keep this up so much that you'd create an entire other category for this thing! i reverted it.

Sparsefarce 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I request this edit conflict be resolved by a neutral 3rd party. Wayetender 20:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank God. I for one can't wait to finally see a resolution to this highly important issue. At last, there's a light at the end of this dark tunnel. Wavy G 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in the form of His Beastliness' Holy Light. Monstar83457 00:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to Dragoonmac's request for proof here is the page for his 'power increasing drink' (which is sometimes called 'Beast Drink' or 'Monster Drink' (as it has no definite name) [www.spudart.org/blogs/randomthoughts_comments/P2367_0_3_0/ Monster Drink]. This reference the 'Beast Drink' prototype hence it was written in 2004. As for t3h BEAST's introduction of the Numa Numa dance, the whole point of pseudonym is to retain one's anonymity. Monstar83457 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought for sure this guy was just putting on this fun little act for a harmless laugh, but after following his link, I realised that he actually believes he's incited some kind of web phenomenon because 5 people replied to a post of his on a web forum. If that's the case, then I'm by all means an Internet Phenomenon, and so now I'm going to have to add an entry about my me and "Myspace" blog. Wavy G 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The Internet does not contain only the World Wide Web. There is also video games, such as Dark Age Of Camelot and IRC channels where he is very well known. He is also mentioned on a YTMND page, [omfgbeast.ytmnd.com/]. A more complete list can be found in my post above. - Wayetender 17:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The post made by the website I cited above is NOT made by me but can be found easily if you google it. The site is not some random web forum, but is a professional website. Futhermore, if you look at the date of the post it is August 2004.
Monstar83457 19:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That beast guy sounds kinda beastly 72.43.26.82 16:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

T3h BEAST has also been spotted in the Upper Blackrock Spire in World of Warcraft -Wayetender 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that t3h BEAST is an actual identity. While I agree that it is much less known and much rarer than other internet phenomena, it is nevertheless also the longest-running, going back to the early 1990s around the release of the Nintendo Entertainment System. At this point t3h BEAST gained somewhat of a cult following which gradually evolved into an internet indentity with the advent of internet-connected personal computers. There are not many that can still say they know the original t3h BEAST, but today it is quite popular in its evolved spelling: "The Beast".

-Richard Wanksen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.99.87 (talkcontribs)

The point of an Internet phenomenon is that is is known on the Internet. A "much less known" Internet phenomenon, especially one that's not verified by actual Internet sightings, just isn't one. Jay Maynard 02:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the much less known internet phenomenon is directly responsible for the current internet fad such as Numa Numa, as stated by Wayetender, and merits inclusion. More on tehbeast . white . prohosting . com/

Tom Cruise kills Oprah[edit]

Probably. Either this, or the whole "Tom Cruise is freaky Scientologitst closet-case who wigged out on Oprah" phenomenon in general.
I agree, a generalized "Tom Cruise" internet phenomena link seems more warranted. It may be more pop culture than internet though.--Zolty 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indications of notability[edit]

  • While I agree this page is useful, I think it's an obvious cruft magnet. I'm going to start including indications of notability - non-internet notices; mainstream internet news coverage; inclusion on some sort of legitimate "best of the web" lists, etc - for each meme, and then after a while removing the ones that don't have any indications of notability as an internet meme (this doesn't mean removing the articles - it just probably means it's not an internet phenomenon or meme). --Hamiltonian 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Reducing the size of this page[edit]

I think that this page should be split into two. One should be about internet phenomena, no list. It would be prose, and explain in more depth about internet phenomena in general. The second should be called "List of internet phenomena" (or something like that), which would function much like the page now, except it would merge in many of the articles that it links to - often they are just one or two paragraph articles that would be better served and more centralized in one article. (Obviously many of the memes will also retain their articles, just some articles only have a few sentences to say about them that are verifiable.) This might also solve some of the "deletion" wars that crop up now and then regarding such articles. I often advocate deletion because the meme's article can only be two or three sentences long while still adhering to a code of NPOV, verifiability and notability. Were they all on one page, and short I could have less problems with such articles. Thoughts? --Hamiltonian 06:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- PinkDeoxys 13:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like the right way to go. Most articles with large lists separate them into their own pages. This list could potentially be huge. Right now, it really only includes things that are current trends or things still fresh in people's heads. There's a bunch of Internet phenomena from a few years ago that have since subsided, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed. Think about the Lars Ulrich phenom during the "Napster" debacle, or those "American Express" ad parodies from years gone by. But I personally wouldn't dare add anything more, especially with as big as it is now.
Then again...without the list, the article itself is only one paragraph. I don't mind it being whole, but if the problem is the size, it should be split up somehow. Wavy G 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I imagine something like this:
Article 1 - "Internet phenomenon": an expanded description of what they are, plus a link to the different categories of memes.
Article 2 - "List of internet memes (video and audio)": So, "Numa numa", various flash animations, the "Back dorm boys".
Article 3 - "List of internet memes (text and images)": things like "O RLY?" or "All your base belong to us" or "Chuck Norris Facts". Also, websites would likely go here, as they are text and images.
I think that actually covers it. 90 per cent of the stuff that's on this page right now fits in to one of these two categories. Things that don't, I would argue, aren't actually internet phenomena - "scams" such as Poetry.com or "internet trolling" might be perfectly notable, even important part of the internet - but are they memes? Eh. There's got to be a difference between something that's popular on the internet and and internet phenomenon. Otherwise, AOL, Google, CNN, Wikipedia - all internet phenomena too.
As for formatting, I think that other than a description of the meme - which can be shorter in the case of something with its own page, or slightly longer for something that doesn't merit one (i.e. there's just not more information than a handful of sentences to be written) - two links are required - one, a link to the meme (even through the Wayback Machine); two, an indication of notability - mainstream media coverage (I include major internet only publications too - like CNet). Some people argue that this is inappropriate because they don't cover memes - oh, but they do! CNN has a regular "Viral videos" feature; newspapers have covered a slew of them; CNet and Yahoo! have done best of the web lists. If the meme doesn't make some sort of list like this it seriously makes me question its notability - if we don't demand something like this, we're simply going to have to accept listing every little inside joke that has gone on it any forum. (I don't think that a large amount Google hits are sufficient on their own - using them to indicate whether something is an internet meme is original research; and, if someone wanted to include their own website as linkspam here, they could easily mock up many thousands of Google hits in a couple of days.) Requiring these two things proves that (a) it exists; and (b) it's at least notable.
Also included on the article would like a link to things like "List of YTMND fads" or "Something Awful" - some internet memes have not really spread outside these (and similiar types) of communities. While they might be important they are more "YTMND memes" than "Internet memes" and should be included on the appropriate page. (They might even be considered subpages of the larger internet meme project.) --Hamiltonian 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Another idea for verifying notability: How about Vh1's Web Junk 20, as another indication of notability? That is, at least for the videos (which is pretty much all they show). They would certainly have to be notable to appear on a tv show about Internet memes. Of course, the longer that show runs the deeper they would have to scour, but it would be another good starting point for checking on something, in addition to the websites you mentioned. Just a suggestion.
Love, Wavy G 05:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot abot Web Junk, but yeah, that kind of thing, exactly. Perhaps not everything on the show is strictly an internet meme, but yeah being on this type of show says to me that it's become sufficient notable to be, um, noted. --Hamiltonian 06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Will you go...[edit]

Is that annoying "Will You Go to the Prom With Me?" video (www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/gotoprom.html) necessary in the Video's section?

I think I recall seeing this on WebJunk 20. Whether or not that makes it notable, I don't know. I've seen it somewhere before, but I can't say for sure where. If someone can verify its notability, we should add it.

"Yelling at Cats"[edit]

www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Yelling+at+Cats%22

all same film

Fakes[edit]

I'm pretty sure both the German Angry kid and the Leeroy Jenkins, were declared fake. As you could find movies of the german kid nicked "real gangster" showing his acting skills.

And about Leeroy Jenkins there are several things that point out that it is indeed staged.

How can Leeroy Jenkins be fake? It was in a game.

Leeroy Jenkins was odviously staged, the guild made it as a scripted video, not necessarially a fake but deffinatly a production. --Zolty 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The German kid might be fake, but without a doubt, Leeroy Jenkins was not fake. It was pretty much an attempt to advertise a certain guild by showing the guild in action working together to defeat a difficult enemy, but went haywire due to Leeroy Maplejet 13:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Leeroy Jenkins is fake, but that doesn't change it's status as a phenomenon. The video never claimed to be real. It is made for purely comical relief. Listen to what the guild is saying to each other before the raid; they talk about scattering the enemies and then using Area of Effect spells, which would be useless if the enemies were scattered.

References[edit]

I've added the references tag because currently the article doesn't have any. Digging slightly led me to www.stnews.org/News-2555.htm, which seems to define an internet phenomenon as being something featured by notable internet websites. Is that a fair representation? Hiding talk 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Leeroy video itself was staged, but thats not the point at all. That doesnt take anything away from it. Mr d00d! 10:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

hasselhoffed[edit]

so they deleted the hasselhoffed article because it was determined it was a neologism and the creator was using wikipedia to try to start a fad, which of course is not what wikipedia is about. should we kill its listing here?

Sparsefarce 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wavy G 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Bill Crum"[edit]

Not legitimate. Sounds like somebody's pissed off at his professor, and taking it out here. The name returned many search results, but only a few actually dealing with the Purdue professor. There's a few forums where the name is mentioned, as well as some Purdue websites, but nothing to be found that matches the description listed here. The rest of the search results are legitimate websites about other people with the same name.

Just letting you know, I'm removing this, in case anybody has a problem with that. Wavy G 00:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up[edit]

I've cleaned up much of this article to make it read a little better. I didn't remove any content (except for "Bill Crum") but I combined some redundant entries. Such as: "Websites" listed "Million Dollar Homepage" and "Personal Sites" listed "Alex Tew" (creator of "Million Dollar Homepage"), so I combined them into one entry. I tried to remove as many sentence fragments as I could. I think fragments are okay in this sort of article (basically a list of entries with brief descriptions), but if the descriptions could be made into a complete sentence, I went ahead and changed them. Also I fixed a lot of spelling and grammar. Wavy G 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Hamiltonian 03:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Caught a spelling error... Changed "Orhthoodox" to "Orthodox." Saint Mahone 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo 64 kid[edit]

I want to say that the nintendo 64 kid video is from 1998 because it contains the atomic purple controler. I am pretty confident this bundle was from holiday 1998 on through until the funtastic series.

Remove these?[edit]

Under Non Celebrities: Zwible (never heard of, no article, just an improperly placed link to facebook, which requires a login); Nathan Braun (has short article that doesn't give any indication this man is a meme. Likely a vanity addition from User:Willyjenks ); Kimbo Slice (article gives barely a reason to consider him a meme)

Kimbo Slice is notable for those clips of "backyard boxing" that spread around the Internet a year or two ago. Here: www.sublimedirectory.com/basement/media/kimbo.wmv If not him, then the "Backyard Boxing" itself should be listed under the Videos instead of him. As far as the other two go, I say delete them. I'm all for cleaning up the list as much as possible. Wavy G 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Didn't realise when I read this that those other two you mentioned are brand new additions to the list. I went ahead and reverted them. "Zwible" seems to be just some kid having a bit of fun. The Loyd Braun thing or whatever is apparently real, although what it has to do with Internet phenomena is beyond me. I reverted them both. Wavy G 03:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Tron Guy". Interesting...[edit]

I never heard of him before, but I just read it, and I saw that it was actually entered by himself. I looked into it, and I have no doubt it is for real, because he's all over the net and apparently the guy even appeared on Jimmy Kimmel. It just seems interesting that someone makes their own entry on Internet Phenomenon and it really is legit. Your thoughts? Wavy G 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe adding your own legit entry on this page will become the next hot "internet phenomenon"? Stranger things ... --Hamiltonian 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't help feeling a bit left out when I saw the page. I was a bit nervous about adding it, but I do believe I can legitimately claim Internet phenomenon status. Oh, and thanks to whoever was nice enough to change the description from my "overweight" to "slightly overweight"...Jay Maynard 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
A "warts and all" description; I like your style (and I don't mean the "Tron" suit, btw). Wavy G 02:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I figured that, if I didn't do it first, someone else would. Besides, it's a legitimate criticism. Jay Maynard 12:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


Federline[edit]

Shouldn't he be moved to the "non-celebrity" category?

Shouldn't he be moved to the tool page?

policy proposal[edit]

Please help build policy at: Wikipedia:Notability (memes). Thank you, --Urthogie 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

proposed additions[edit]

The real life Simpsons intro www.youtube.com/watch?v=49IDp76kjPw and the A millon ways dance www.youtube.com/watch?v=11iS0XIRSmc.

That Youtube link is dead and the Simpsons thing seems like it wasn't that big. hobbie 13:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

They've both been in the news and viewed by millons on the online.

Google video lists this video 14 timesvideo.google.com/videosearch?q=real+life+simpsons, youtube lists this video at least 50 times youtube.com/results?search=simpson+real+life&search_type=search_videos&search=Search. The youtube page views indicate over a million views on the first page alone. I think this is noteworthy.
That's an old discussion. The Simpson's intro is already listed in the article. Wavy G 04:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Daler Mehndi's Tunak Tunak Tun?[edit]

I think that video was distributed all over the internet in the early part of this decade. Shouldn't that be worth a mention? Maplejet 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Website section expansion[edit]

Perhaps there should a specific section that lists the websites from which memes often come from as listed in the introduction, e.g. Fark, YTMND, AlbinoBlackSheep, Ebaum's, etc. Thoughts? My little needle 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Most things it's extrememly difficult to pinpoint their source of origin. For those which it is know, a note in the description itself will do, no need to create new sections. Elijya 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Afro Ninja, anyone?[edit]

Most of you have probably seen it; it's a real short video of a dude with an afro trying out at an audition with some very crappy "ninja" moves. It's spread mostly as an animated gif.

I vote yes. This video is older than a year, but probably a good bit more. It is a popular and well-known video that can be seen on eBaums if not anywhere else, but Im sure you can find it easily by searching google or youtube. Mr d00d! 11:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Internet Phenomena Wiki[edit]

I'm putting this here because it seems like the best place to get it noticed. I'm in the process of creating an Internet Phenomena Wiki (most likely on Wikia unless someone has a better idea). The intent would be to provide a safe haven for articles that tend to get removed for being not important enough for Wikipedia, and at the same time give more in-depth coverage of those that don't than a Wikipedia article would merit. For instance, the deleted list of screamers would get an article (actually more than one -- one for actual screamers and one for other prank Flashes), as would a list of running gags in Animutations and the more popular YTMND memes.

Obviously I can't do this all myself, and more importantly Wikia recommends having a dedicated team before signing up, so I'm recruiting anyone interested. Anyone who likes the idea and thinks they'd have the time to work on such a thing, feel free to reply here or contact me on my own Talk page. Octan out. Octan 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Toyota "Bugger" advertisements[edit]

I'm fairly sure these ads come from Australia, not New Zealand. "Bugger" is a celebrated part of Australian slang. I'm not going in and changing it myself because I don't know for sure where this series of ads originated from. They were certainly shown on TV here in Australia (and caused a little controversy), though. SoulSkorpion 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A Google search for "Toyota bugger commercial" turns up bunches of hits, as one would expect - and all of the ones I saw said it was NZ first. Jay Maynard 12:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
They aired in Australia, but were definitely from New Zealand --- if you read the small print at the bottom of each ad, it said `New Zealand model shown', and were originally aired there. Elric of Grans 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Flexible Girl[edit]

I started this one by posting the video on SpikedHumor... I know you don't believe me, but I wish I knew how to watermark videos back then. I got it direct from the gymnast's russian website, so I find it hard to believe that anybody else could have found it. I've always liked viral humor sites, and I never saw this video on any site before I posted it. Here's the original that I uploaded: www.spikedhumor.com/articles/3961/Flexible_Girl.html 'Flexible Girl' at SpikedHumor.com Phil Beveridge (Phil-CSF) 14:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

EBaum's World[edit]

Okkay, I've seen lots of additions and reversions for EBaum's World in the list of sites that phenomena explode on the world from. WTF is going on here? Jay Maynard 00:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. It never really mattered one way or another to me until I just noticed it removed again today. It suddenly occurred to me something funny is going on. Obviously someone has a problem with Ebaum's World, and I know there's some controversy about the site "stealing" things from various other sites and putting its name on them, however, the site is still responsible for popularizing several of the memes listed here. Whether someone thinks it's "fair" or not, Ebaum's World should be left alone. Wavy G 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, eBaum's needs to be listed here. If anything this is one of the most important things on the meme list and definitely the most important website on the list. It has been around for years, it was one of, or, the first websites to catalogue the internet more or less. I'm aware of the eBaum Vs. Ytmnd war that went down a few months ago and may still persist today, but regardless, eBaums is to stay up. Mr d00d! 11:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "most important", as what you see as most important depends on which site you hang out at. i know people who'd say SomethingAwful, Slasdot, and Fark top the list. Still, it's inarguably there. Jay Maynard 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, that was a poor word choice. Mr d00d! 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Moshzilla[edit]

I'm not sure I'd call it an "ILLEGAL" link. Just because the girl's parents don't want the picture used does not make it any less an Internet phenomenon, and certainly their threats of legal action are not sufficient to make it illegal - only a court can do that.

That said, I note that the page on the girl was deleted by way of a VfD, and adding a mention here could be construed as trying to bypass that vote. I'm not experienced enough around here to know if that's the case or not, but I've seen the argument raised.

There seems to be a good argument for including her, and a good argument for not doing so. I'm inclined to include, on the basis of encyclopedicity (is that a word?), but not strongly enough so that I'll do it without discussion. Jay Maynard 02:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Even without the legal issues, it's not notable. The picture is not seen very much on the Internet before since the girl's family threatened legal action. It's really no more popular than a random 4chan forum image. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

this even got a news coverage on cnet and has a dedicated *.com website. just like any other random 4chan image huh? face it, its a PHENOMENON, and this is the article it deserves to be in. --84.47.48.220 02:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It got news coverage because of the legal action. And if you look at the site, it says it's been taken down. And if you want to continue to hang yourself with personal attacks, that's fine by me. Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • MORE COVERAGE?? LEGAL ACTION?? THAT PROVES EVEN MORE THAT IT IS A PHENOMENON!!! (An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel FYI) --84.47.48.220 02:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But is it a significant one? Since all that brouhaha happened, I've yet to run into any more examples of Moshzilla images. It no longer has an article (see above discussions). At best it is a minor Internet meme, without information that can be verified for whatever reasons. Stop re-adding it. If you feel so strongly about it, take it through the proper channels. Danny Lilithborne 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the argument for not including moshzilla? Because someone simply doesn't WANT her included? TOO BAD, ITS ALL OVER INTERNET AND THIS IS A FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA. We dont censor articles right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.47.69.125 (talkcontribs) .

Is it indeed all over the Internet? If so, how would I go about finding it? Be specific, please. Jay Maynard 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
hey jmaynard, there is tool called google, give it a shot. good luck --87.197.121.250 02:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
That's why I said "be specific". What should I Google for? Jay Maynard 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
"moshzilla", "moshgirl" --87.197.121.250 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Before you add it again, whoever you are, I would strongly recommend you read WP:3RR. You're well over three reverts, and you may wind up making the whole article protected for a while to stop an edit war. Jay Maynard 03:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

honestly, just google the god damn thing a see for yourself! --87.197.201.150 03:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


I have protected this page due to the edit war on this topic. Since there is no consensus on this topic, I will not pick a side. Please be mindful of the Three revert rule. -- JamesTeterenko 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Okkay, I've Googled. There are entries to be found, for sure. Did she reach the level of Internet phenomenon? Good question. I do believe that having the article be deleted is not sufficient to cause someone to be removed from this list as well: see Brian Peppers, for example. That there are no current references (the blog at the site referencing her was last updated in June 2005) is not sufficient either; it is the nature of an encyclopedic reference to list not only current phenomena, but those in the past.

OTOH, the vehemence with which our anonymous friend pursued this crusade leaves me extremely suspicious. This smells like one of her high school enemies trying to see that she's made fun of in as many places as possible. Wikipedia should not be used as someone's weapon.

I guess I'm still in favor of her inclusion, but less strongly so since the edit war started. Jay Maynard 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How long will this be protected for? There are alot of Internet meme's not on the list which need to be added e.g. www.wherethegoldat.com/. This has been protected because of a dispute with two members, one of which did break the Three Revert Rule, but it's annoying the whole article is protected because of that one member, especially considering the dispute is not article wide and is on one Internet meme only. -- Robhakari 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I count at least three users involved in the edit war: User:Danny Lilithborne, User:87.197.201.150 (+ other IPs from the same ISP) and User:Jmaynard. And regarding the three-revert rule, the first two clearly violated this (even if you assume the other IPs are different users). Since it is difficult to block boths sides and treat them equally, I chose to protect the article. (It is difficult, since only one user is logged in and the other has a changing IP address.) I will watch the discussion over the next few days, and hopefully will be able to unprotect the article soon. If there really is something that needs to be added to the article you have two choices right now: add it to the talk page and I (or another admin) can add it to the article or wait until the page is no longer protected. -- JamesTeterenko 15:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The revert war got out of hand; I apologize for violating policy, and I know it was wrong to do it. At the time, I didn't feel like I had any other recourse; I felt as though its presence was not legal and might get Wikipedia in trouble. I lost control when the anonymous user started insulting me. I can't justify it, though. I will keep a cooler head next time. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, my participation in the edit war was limited to one reversion to the status quo ante - despite my personal belief that the item should be included. Was this inappropriate? My goal was to try to hold things off until consensus could be reached here. Jay Maynard 15:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your edit was fine, especially since you were discussing it on the talk page to try to resolve the dispute. I was just stating that you were involved. -- JamesTeterenko 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hope that things have calmed down a bit now. I will now unprotect the page. In the event that a user is breaking the 3RR, please post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -- JamesTeterenko 03:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha yea, I remember seeing this plenty of times on different websites. If it's included, it is definitely one of the less popular memes on the list.

Deleted article == deleted entry here?[edit]

I raised it indirectly in the Moshzilla discussion, but I'll raise it again on its own: Does deletion of an article linked from here by AfD (and, it seems, usually for non-notability) warrant deletion of the entry in this article as well? Personally, I don't think so. The standards for notability for this article (assuming that such are necessary, which a quick look through the discussion will show considerable disagreement over) should be lower, IMAO, than the standard for notability for a dedicated article. Remove the resulting redlink, sure, but leave the entry. Jay Maynard 12:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would remove it from the article. A vote to delete is that the information is not important for an encyclopedia. A vote to merge means that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, just not as an article on it's own. Since the merge voted didn't win out, turf the content. -- JamesTeterenko 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Let us not forget that this article is nothing more than an article about Internet phenomena and a listing of examples of them. If something listed here has its own article, then so be it, and by all means provide a link. If an article itself is deleted as non-notable, that just means the subject isn't important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, but that doesn't change the fact that the subject is still an Internet phenomenon (if indeed it truly is one). Wavy G 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree that it should be deleted. Many memes are notable enough for an entry here, but not notable enough for its own article. Surely notability guidelines for a slight mention are lower than notability guidelines for an article, otherwise merges would never happen. --Rory096 01:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Just because an article is deleted (again, see Brian Peppers), doesn't mean it's not a phenomenon. I would disagree with the recent removing of "The Juggernaut Bitch!" because I have seen that all over the net. Does it deserve an article? No, apparently not, which is why the article was deleted. But that doesn't mean the subject shouldn't have a short mention here. PS: Forgive me for being skeptical, but you're telling me a video called "Nuts in the Ass, Dick in the Pussy" is a real Internet meme? I didn't even bother to verify, just based on the name (we get stuff like that a lot). Wavy G 02:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. That's actually not the real name of the porn video, but it's mentioned in Tony Eveready and has become notable for its... odd scenarios (to say the least). But I guess that's not surprising when it's called "Ass Dun Wanna Let My Nuts Out." --Rory096 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Brolsma/Numa Numa Dance[edit]

I see no reason to list this one twice. The listing under Videos for Numa Numa Dance should be enough. Anyone disagree? Jay Maynard 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I already removed it once. It appears the same person added it back. Apparently they didn't read through the article before adding it (it is a long article). Although I explained on my edit summary the first time I removed it that the Numa Numa dance was already listed (and his name is given in that entry), and anyway, Gary Brolsma redirects to Numa Numa. This is a very long list, and there's no reason to list anything twice. Wavy G 15:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That's why I removed it the second time. I'm documenting that here in the (possibly vain) hope that the anonymous user who added it twice will see the reasons it keeps getting deleted before adding it again; he obviously doesn't read history pages, so I'm probably whistling in the dark, but hope springs eternal. Jay Maynard 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been finding a lot of duplicates on here lately. I think the different categories are what throws people. "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" was added when Dancing banana was already there (same meme), and there's been a few others I've caught in the past. I just caught some more: Mr. T is listed under celebrities, citing what appears to be those "...Ate My Balls" websites, when the Mr. T Ate My Balls is already on the websites section further down in the article. Like I said, it is a very long list, and it's doubtful that people are going to read through the whole thing before deciding to add an entry. We're just going to have to keep an eye out... Wavy G 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is getting too big when it reaches the point that duplicates are not readily obvious. Perhaps a split is in order: an overall article that discusses origin and propagation of phenomena, and a series of articles listing the different types? Jay Maynard 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

* Andy Milonakis — Before he got his own show on MTV, he posted several short films on the World Wide Web, including guitar songs like "The Superbowl is Gay" and freestyles like "Crispy". Those songs were infamous for their very bizarre, obscene, and unrealistic lyrics about topics such as zoosadism, avisodomy, homophobia etc.

If someone could flesh this out with specific example lyrics, they would be my hero.--Wasabe3543 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"I'm the Juggernaut Bitch!"[edit]

If anyone can verify that this line actually appears in the new X-Men movie, please do so. I removed a recent addition to the "Juggernaut Bitch" entry stating that this line was homaged in the X-Men: The Last Stand. I went ahead and removed it without verifiying because it sounds very suspicious. But I may be wrong. If so, please correct me, but until then, I'm taking it out. Wavy G 11:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. I just read a few reviews of the film and apparently this is for real. I just assumed it was a prank. My "bad." Restoring the deleted movie reference. Wavy G 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Da Lep Ra Con[edit]

I'm really surprised that this internet phenomenon is not mentioned. www.wheredagoldat.com Currently this fad is huge, even spawning hip-hop/techno remixes getting playtime at clubs.

There was something about a Leprechaun on the list at one point. I even remember looking into it to verify its notability. I guess somebody must have disagreed, seeing as how it's no longer on the list. If you feel it is notable, by all means, add it back. Wavy G 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added Da Lep Ra Con back to the list.
Da Lep Ra Con has been deleted again. Will someone please post a reson as to why? This is definetly an internet phenomenon. It has inspired many videos, musical remixes, photoshopped images, ebay auctions, et cetera. While it may not be politically correct, it certainly belongs on this list.
Not notable? Or perhaps a hoax? I don't know, but it's very telling when an entry is deleted twice (by different people nonetheless). Like I said, we've already been through this before. Somebody must have their reasons. Wavy G 14:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Phenomena originate at eBaum's World?[edit]

I understand that eBaum's world must bementioned in the article regarding internet phenomena as it is the largest site regarding internet phenomena, but I have failed to find a single phenomena that originated at eBaum's World. EBaum collects internet phenomena after they are indeed phenomena, or collects them and helps elevate them to phenomenon status, but they most certainly do not originate at eBaum's World. This should be removed. However, since it is controversial I want to know other opinions.

We're not here to play semantics. Originated/found/stole--whatever you want to call it, the point is, it's a popular site and a haven of Internet phenomena. Wavy G 14:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That sentence lists places where memes originate, not "havens of Internet phenomena." JayW 20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we're missing the focus here. Ebaum's world is a popular site and thus it is responsible for many of the things showcased there become popular. Whether the material is originated there or not, it is instrumental in making certain things become phenomena, and that's what the article is concerned with. Wavy G 04:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If they were responsible for an image becoming a meme, it would say "Hosted by eBaumsWorld.com" on the bottom. I have never seen anything like that. JayW 18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's like Slashdot, if I understand it correctly: little originates there, but stuff that originates elsewhere is popularized by appearing there. That's enough to rate the listing of sites that popularize things. Jay Maynard 19:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing Phenomenon[edit]

The following internet memes seem to be missing from the list if not wikipedia as a whole; any ideas why?

Oldies but goldies:

joesparks.shockwave.com/ Radiskull & Devil Doll

www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/mirror/lobsmag.swf Lobster Magnet

www.oz.net/~will/adventures_of_coin_bird/realcoinbird.html Coin Bird

This one is questionable but everyone I know has seen *and* quoted this for as long as I can remember:

www.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe.html GI Joe clips

GI Joe PSAs are already listed, if that's what you're talking about. I've never heard of the other ones that I know of, so I cannot comment. Love always and forever, Wavy G 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Judson Laipply/Evolution of Dance[edit]

Does Judson Laipply, specifically the Evolution of Dance, count? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

William Hung[edit]

Doesn't "butchers Ricky Martin songs" seem a bit biased an unencyclopaedic?

Yes, it does. Good call. Wavy G 00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Or so I thought...I changed the wording and it was instantly reverted. Wavy G 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. It was part of a mass revert by the verification police. Changed back. Wavy G 02:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Verification[edit]

Any entries that do not satisfy the policy of verification is prone to removal. For lists, this almost always means having a parent article. Failing that, there needs to be a reliable source that documents that an entry is an "Internet phenomenon." - brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but how do you source something that is simply known for being popular on the Internet? Things become popular due to them being posted on forums, or forwarded in emails, or what have you. How do you document that? I can say I personally verified many of the entries on this list, and so have many other contributors. Honestly, I mean, removing David Wills because he has no parent article? They were selling tee-shirts with his slogan on it at one point, for crying out loud. And who hasn't been forwarded the "Milkshake" video? As I stated in its entry, it was parodied in Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. I'd say that make's it pretty notable. And what's to say a parent article is indicitive of a true phenomenon? Take Kevin Federline, for example. He was on the list for ages before I realised it was a hoax and removed it. I think it's a poor choice removing valid entries because of the lack of a parent article, but I will argue no further. I bid you a pleasant evening and a good morrow. Love, Wavy G 02:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Aye, this is another of the "I totally know this webcomic is notable!" style arguments. The point is not just removing entries that don't have valid articles, although the guideline for lists does support that action. The point is that if we don't have independant, reliable, third party sources for things they don't belong in an encyclopedia. This verification is usually most appropiately placed in a parent article, where is can be examined in greater detail. To take your "milkshake" example, simply because it was parodied doesn't necesarily mean it was a phenomenon. The writers could have been one of only six people to see it, and just thought it was funny. On an article's talk page it gets dissected and dicussed in great detail, but as an item on a list it's just "Yeah, sure."
brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 02:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is: How do we handle articles that are deleted if the discussion on AfD leads to a consensus of "this doesn't rate an article of its own, but a listing on List of Internet phenomena would be warranted"? See, for example, Brian Peppers. Jay Maynard 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that has happened quite a bit, actually. I have seen on many deletion discussion logs for phenomena that the articles should be deleted, with a consensus that it be redirected and listed here. Now we're told phenomena need parent articles in order to be listed here. Is it just me, or do we seem to have been given a conflicting set of "rules" regarding this sort of thing? Wavy G 20:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
In that case, there needs to be scrupulous citation that support the inclusion in the lists. Looking to List of sexual slurs for an example. The "parent article" thing sort of misses the point: verification. Things can be listed here if citations that show they are internet phenomena are provided. This is actually quite hard to do, and some rigirous checking would show that there are several items in the list now without such backing in their article, so they are not only questionable as entries here but as articles at all. - brenneman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 14:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't think that popularity should be a criterion for inclusion here AT ALL. The only criterion for inclusion should be that a notable, third-party source has called something an internet phenomenon. That's it. --Hamiltonian 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That considerably raises the bar compared to what's there today. My entry would survive, but how much else? Jay Maynard 15:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps controversially, I have no problem with little on the page surviving (I'm think it would be likely halved). This page has a tendency to occasionally devolve - in whole or part - into a "List of funny things on the internet". Other than the criterion I have proposed, how else can we avoid original research? --Hamiltonian 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm. To me, if a substantial number of people have gotten an email along the lines of "Hey, you gotta check this out!", or if it's become a staple of discussion on Fark, Slashdot, et al, then it qualifies. I do agree that that's hard to verify, though, especially with mainstream media sources. Fundamentally, this is about the Internet, not about things that escape into the mainstream; that criterion would be too narrow, since very few legitimate Internet phenomena cross over. I don't have a problem with thinning the page out, but I've been careful so far to avoid removing things just because I've never heard of them. It's a difficult balance to strike. Jay Maynard 15:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I do definitely agree that it's a struggle. But if something is an internet phenomenon, I think, by defintion, it would escape to the "mainstream" (very loosely defined). VH1 (I think) has a show called "Web Junk 20" - this would certainly be fine with me. CNN regularly features "viral videos" - that works. My only worry is that without some third-party source, there really is no argument against people adding in whatever strikes their fancy. Google Trends can be of some limited help as well (that is, if it doesn't even show up on Google Trends), then it should show up here. But I'm certainly in no hurry. --Hamiltonian 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's a website: www.cnet.com/4520-11136_1-6268155-1.html. Although there's not much too it; it's just a one-time "top ten" list, it may be of some help as well. Hey, and here's anoth one: www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=24853, and look who's on it. Why, it's our very own Jay Maynard!!! Wavy G 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 :-) Jay Maynard 19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Other than being called an "overweight, aging nerd" (I guess someone in your position is subject to such derision) how does it feel to be a top 10 Internet phenomenon?
It's been a wild ride. The effects haven't worn off, either; there are a couple of projects in the pipeline (one of which has been percolating for over a year) that will, when they finally get released, stretch out the fame a bit more. It's something I never expected, though, and I'd never have guessed all that would come of making that costume and posting the page about it. Jay Maynard 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Are we to expect a Tron Guy movie coming soon? Perhaps Tron Guy: Man in Tights followed by Tron Guy II: The Wrath of Cameltoe? Wavy G 02:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind doing a movie, actually... Jay Maynard 02:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of Dance[edit]

I think that the Evolution of Dance video should be on here. It's the most Viewed AVideo on YouTube. It's appeared on Good Morning America, the today Show and CNN. It's also appeared on hundreds of other sites.

Joe Bermudez[edit]

Joe Bermudez's status as a celebrity is certainly debatable. He's an incredibly well-known techno artist but still not a household name by any stretch of the imagination. Should he be celebrity or non-celebrity? VanillaX 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I've never heard of him before reading it here. Although, I checked, and he is all over the net. However, there appears to be no Wikipedia article on him, so unless you can cite a source verifying his notoriety, I'm afraid he's gone. Wavy G 02:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
He's definitely more of an internet meme than he is a celebrity, so should we listr him as a celebrity or a non-celebrity on here? VanillaX 19:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If you say he's more of an internet meme, list him as a non-celebrity. Chances are if he were a "celebrity," he would have an article. Wavy G 02:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. VanillaX 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)