Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archive 10

Time travel

I have to agree that on this page the rather silly Chaplin time travel story has a plce. it was an internet phenomina.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to start a new section about this; it fulfills the criteria supplied by WP:NOTE. While it may have very well been some psycho talking to her hearing aid, it was indeed picked up by major news organs. At that point, it became notable. Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is Boxxy???

I was looking for boxxy in the videos but she wasn't there :( :( :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxxyRoxxies (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please look in the archives for past discussion on this topic. Cheers Kyle1278 04:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Angry German Kid

Why isn't he in the meme list? He was very popular (and still is) in japan, germany, and america because of his video... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.116.111 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.12.35.40, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} To be added to the "images" section - "Pass Go Like a Boss" : Internet image of teens playing Monopoly on Splash Mountain attraction at the Disneyland Resort. Appeared on January 7, 2011 and spread to numerous websites. Details include the fact that a monopoly is owned on the yellow properties and a hotel has been purchased on Marvin Gardens. The picture can be found at http://9gag.com/gag/66335 among many other websites.

128.12.35.40 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.In order to include that, you need to provide a reliable source which verifies that this qualifies as a "phenomena". This list is not designed to include every single picture/video/blog that appeared on multiple websites. If you do have a reliable source to verify the pictures wide dispersal, then please make a new edit request with that info. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Claire Swire [email]

Suggest a new entry under email for the Claire Swire email - possibly the first real global example of unintentionally disclosed personal email going viral and the event was certainly a global internet phenomenon in the days when the internet was still mostly populated by dialup users. There are plenty of references for the story and although wikipedia's current article places the authenticity of the event in some doubt citing reference to a Register article dated 12th Dec 2000, however The Register published 2 more articles following this on the 14th and 15th of Dec 2000. Other sources (such as snopes) confirm the stories validity. The impact on net citizenship and subsequent personal email disclosures is harder to validate admittedly, however I also note that the wikipedia pages classifies the article in the Internet Meme category. Alliehb (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive links

Where are the links to the 2010 Archives of this page? Stevehim (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Weebl and Bob

Weebl and Bob are still called Weebl and Bob in the UK, not Wobble and Bob. Jonti Picking is actually British, and I hadn't seen a single mention of "Wobble and Bob" anywhere until I saw this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.192.18 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above, please can we have this changed. It's ridiculous. --Wengole (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Equal Three?

I think Equal Three has recieved the sort of popularity necessary to be considered an internet phenomeon. Almost every episode has gotten at least 7,000,000 views I believe. Just a thought.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

He certainly is a very popular internet blogger, but he's not a "phenomenon" like Boxxy was. There are plenty Youtube celebrities not on this list despite having achieved a massive following. Just because he gave a name to his channel(Show) doesn't mean that makes it phenomenon classifiable.Nex Carnifex (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IP you should refer to the talks on Talk:List of YouTube personalities. Kyle1278 02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

More evidence is needed than "7,000,000 views" to be considered an "Internet phenomena". Has it been covered by major media outlets (e.g. not random blog posts)? WTF? (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a magic number that translates as internet phenomena? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Viewership alone doesn't equate to being included here. It's if it work has been noted as a phenomena or equivalent in major reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. For example, YouTube videos allowing people to see how a particular Photoshop technique might have 10 million views, but that doesn't make it notable. However, something else likely of value might have an even smaller number than 7m. It needs to be seen from a all-over viewpoint. Nixing something simply because it doesn't have a magic number of views is absurd. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What 9000!

Its not here--what the heck.--70.246.142.247 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? No wai! Nex Carnifex (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

i think we should add it and have alink to the youtube video. --70.246.142.247 (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't link to Youtube videos because of their lack of permanence and frequently lack notability. If you have reliable citations, that's what you should be linking to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, what about the awesome smiley and the troll face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.163.165.5 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kermit Bale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest merging the above article into this one. It's pretty trivial - there really isn't any more to say about it than a couple of sentences - but it does have coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I just don't think it needs a separate article. Robofish (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It would have to pass WP:N, which it doesn't look like it would on a grand scale. So, I Support. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Screw WP:N. WP:N is what stops this wiki from being perfect, and breeds deletionism. Therefore, I give Non-Support Bonelayer12864 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Support there is no notability. The article should be redirected here or deleted. Kyle1278 00:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Properly cited, it might warrant a mention in the article for Christian Bale, as well as on the list of Internet memes. But the article on this topic should be swiftly deleted and redirected. WTF? (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Support Not notable, would suggest deletion but if not definitely merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NexCarnifex (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed and the article Kermit Bale has been redirected to this page. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a reliable source, so it cannot be listed at this time. WTF? (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banana phone

I noticed 'Banana phone' is missing. The article describes it as an Internet Meme so I suggest we add it. Tell me this is not hypnotic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5C6X9vOEkU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.133.166 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A single Youtube link with a self-reported hit count of 8,046,380 views does not a meme make. To be included in this page, it requires a reliable source. WTF? (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Guile's Theme Goes With Everything

It seems that the Guile Theme mashup has been overlooked on this list, even though it has seen over 5000 imitation videos... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are now even sub-memes, which use themes from other Street Fighter characters such as Dudley, Akuma, Sharon, Juri, Garuda, Rose and Balrog... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell us when it reaches OVER 9000! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NexCarnifex (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The guy who started it all has a total of 1,873,794 views... and there are over a hundred other people who have uploaded a dozen videos each... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

AVGN and Nostalgia Critic

The Angry Video Game Nerd and Nostalgia Critic should definitely be on this list somewhere. These two dominate the internet on looking back into the past of terrible video games and movies (although the Critic does so some good films). The rants these guys create about their movies have led to many popular references, such as anything regarding the Power Glove and the phenomenon known as the Big Lipped Alligator Moment. They are so popular, there are countless people on the internet who try to rip off their ideas to become successful themselves (such as the Irate Gamer). I don't see how these two could possibly be left off this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubajoe0 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Popular is not the same as being an internet phenomenon. They need to be documented that they are treated like this, which best as I know, they aren't. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Downfall (2004)

the movie that spurred all the 'Hitler rants' i believe is missing from here Paganpan (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

-Why would we need that, we have that actual meme:

"Hitler Rage Videos – A series of viral videos featuring a scene of Adolf Hitler ranting in German, from the 2004 movie Downfall. The original English subtitles have been removed and mock subtitles added to give the appearance that Hitler is ranting about a number of modern topics, such as the negative reaction to the 2009 movie Star Trek, iPad, Facebook, why Chicago lost the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, the US bailout, the 2009 rift within Formula One and FIFA's refusal to ban the Vuvuzela. While the clips are frequently removed for copyright violations, the film's Director, Oliver Hirschbiegel, has stated that he enjoys them, and claims to have seen about 145 of them."Nex Carnifex (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Figwit

Figwit meme should be nice. What do you guys think? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3587070/Elf-who-launched-a-thousand-hits.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/10/1041990093364.html --Spmoura (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that he's also just been revealed to be in the Hobbit due to the fandome, this would qualify now. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

This guy certainly should be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.11.91 (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

He's certainly a celebrity, no doubt. But I don't think he classifies as an Internet phenomena. So no, he should not be added. He already has a pretty extensive article about him anyways. See WP:RECENTISM for more reasons about why he shouldn't be added. WTF? (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well his quotes are certainly a phenomenon.Nex Carnifex (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Smiledog

"Looking at this picture according to urban legend incites various mental illness and suicide"

HEY, I KNOW!! , let's include a f*cking scary pic so that people who came to this page with the innocent intent of reading about OVER 9000 or say, lolcats, and just happened to stumble upon this and after reading above statement gets to look at the picture for a good nice MINDFUCK.. Seriously, is the pic really necessary?

Last time I checked Wikipedia wasn't Horrorpedia, meant to disturb it's visitors with silly stuff like this. Sorry for rambling, I think the pic should be removed though. 22:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I swear I knew that was coming, but my heart, and brain couldn't take so much scary pictures. No matter how scary, if it pops up all of a sudden, my heart just stops for like, I don't know. An Hour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.147.129 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

UPLOAD A NORMAL SPECIMEN!!!!! THIS ONE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.148.55 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE, it says "NOT THE REAL PICTURE", so stop freaking out, that's a fake one, the real one doesn't actually cause insanity either, so calm down. Nex Carnifex (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"UPLOAD A NORMAL SPECIMEN!!!!! THIS ONE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.148.55 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC) " OMG THaTS THE REAL ONE! *dies* —Preceding unsigned comment added by NexCarnifex (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this image qualifies as a shock image, not only due to it's content ( a dog without any skin?? Seriously? ), but also how it was used. One minute your looking at a nice little, innocent image like a cute little fluffy kitten, and then BAM!! right in the kisser. It is also very a NSFW image. At all. - Another n00b (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about removing the image because of the copyright problem but remember WP:NOTCENSORED so NSFW dose not apply to Wikipedia.Kyle1278 18:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that the only source used to assert the smiledog pic as a phenomena only states "circulating the internet" and does not talk about popularity or viralness or the like, there's no point in even having the entry about this. Even if there was info about this, the picture is non-free , and per WP:NFLISTS, should not be used to simply illustrate a list article. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Per this change, I see no evidence of this happening on-wiki (though NexCarnifex' contrib history). Inclusion of information like this should happen on WP talk pages so that there's a clear record of consensus. If there's no further evidence beyond the one OK paper, this is still improper to add to this article. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

on subject of my edits

I've made a lot of reversions to this article because of some immature users from unencyclopedia that I presume are trying to be trolls, eventually vandalizing my user page and other such acts. I feel my revisions were justified and many people will benefit from the inclusion of the smiledog description when confronted with the infamous story. Being as prolific as to make it to the news as an internet urban legend widely circulating the internet is a big feat, and if you've ever been to 4chan, the king of memes, the /x/ bored makes regular references to it. Nex Carnifex (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As for my final edit occurring after my warning, the wikipedia help live chat agreed it fit the requirements for this page so I took that as an initiative to restore what was taken away. Nex Carnifex (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of inclusion should happen here on WP, because there's no evidence of this assistance here or your contributions. It clearly fails the requirements for inclusion on this page because the only source you have does not say it is an internet phenomena, it merely equates it to an old wives' tale. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it certainly is not an old wives tale, it's fairly recent and is a horror story, and they say it has been widely circulating the internet. That is what copypastas like "mudkipz" do, though in a more inside joke type thing, this is a urban legend kind of way. Both are memes and have been distributed widely througout internet forums and other community sites. It maybe isn't a funny thing people replace words with in sentences or an internet inside joke, but it's a famous internet story or creepypasta, and the most popular creeypasta to date, thus making it an internet phenomenon. The things they say in the source supports this. Nex Carnifex (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether you are right or not on the aspect of being creepypasta. The problem is that this is Wikipedia, and we need outside verification that the item fits this list. Your KFOR says exactly this much about it being on the internet: "There is a disturbing photo circulating on the internet right now." That's it. The rest of the article is about the photo but never talks about it being popular or a meme or viral or the like. This source gives zero evidence of it being an "internet phenomena" and thus is inappropriate for inclusion, without additional sources that back that up. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's all it says in the video description, not the video itself. Nex Carnifex (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I just watched that, and while it mentions "the photo going viral", it doesn't discuss the popularity any more.

I'm going to make a suggestion here instead: "Creepypasta" is a internet phenomena which can be better sourced as a phenomena [1], and that smiledog entry can be put in the description with that source as an example of it. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that sounds like a good idea. Nex Carnifex (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So there, we worked out an agreement!! - Another n00b (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Little fatty

Found news article about it:

• "'Little Fatty' an instant Internet phenomenon in China." Reuters at CNN. December 8, 2006.
• Could be made into a full article

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Samtheyam, 10 May 2011

Under Advertising Orabrush - A series of Youtube videos promoting the use of a tongue cleaner through the characters of the "Orabrush Guy" and "Morgan" a giant tongue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/business/media/27adco.html?_r=1&sq=Orabrush&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1305021846-jUBMG4oooGjW8yYdvgpeVw http://www.orabrush.com http://www.youtube.com/orabrush

Samtheyam (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable (And reminded me we have no Blendtec on this list.) and added. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama speech spoof video

I'm having a hard time justifying this as a Internet phenomena. Start with the fact that Huffington Post is a blog-like site that has been brought up numerous times before (See WP:RS/N), but let's assume that the syracus.com site is fine. It says it is a viral video, and that's it. Now, compared to nearly all the other video links on this page, the "fame" this is getting is insignificant. Only one source reported it, and the rest of the sources from the actual article page are simply plugs for it. (It barely meets notability thresholds at this point, but that's a different issue). Notice that most of the video memes we include are from sites like NYtimes, Time magazine, etc. national papers that make the claim instead of a local source.

And to be brutally honest 3M views after a week isn't viral nowadays, but that's my opinion and judgement. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Masem. Please reconsider:

● Preliminarily: about ~three dozen sources cited in the article on the spoof are independent of the video's producer, respond to the video (and quite vigorously at that), and are therefore definitely not "plugs for it." Non-local/non-trivial sources include: CBS News, Al Jazeera (!), MSNBC, Sean Hannity, The Toronto Star, New York magazine, The Atlantic, The Post-Standard, Funny or Die, TV Guide, The Huffington Post (is not a "personal" blog). RCraig09 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

● Also, the "viral" nature (behavior) of the Obama/Osama/Spoof video should be facially apparent from the article's statistics and distinctions section. And especially when a video involves news-event-timeliness (only three days after Obama's actual speech), thought, creativity, music, dance, and politics, it can't be compared purely on "number of views" to (for example) Dramatic Chipmunk's views. Neither "fame" nor raw views determine viral behavior. This video is an entirely one-man, self-produced YouTube video, whose notability and views don't seem to be matched by other videos in its genre. RCraig09 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Supplemental: Perhaps best indication of viral behavior is in article: "At the end of its third 24 hours after being posted, YouTube reported Crosson's video as being the Comedy category's #1 most "Popular Around the Web," (which YouTube defines as "Videos with the most views when embedded on other websites")." (currently reference 17). "Popularity" isn't the only factor. RCraig09 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

● FYI: I earlier mentioned The Huffington Post & The Post-Standard as examples of references that happened to literally use the word "viral" to match the opening sentence of this Internet Phenomenon article. I'm not "relying" on only two references. RCraig09 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Of the first point, the sources you point to are effective the same as Digg, Reddit, or the like in terms of their "usefulness" as a resource - eg very low, since they just say "here's a funny video made by this guy". These would be primary news sources. I have questions on the video's notability (it barely passes the GNG and would likely fall afoul of WP:NEVENT as a spur of the moment popular item, but I'm not going to push that.

My concern is that right now, if there's a popular video (not necessary one we'd like here as an internet phenomena) it's very easy to find a local or regional source that says its viral/popular, whatever; this list could easily be 10-15 times longer by this metric alone (See the above thing about Smiledog). Which is why the sourcing on this list is a bit more rigorous, we're looking for national or international sources that give that at least a better confirmation of the phenomena nature. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good discussion. Hmm. I'm seeing the real issue seems to be "phenomenon" (in the article's title) versus "popularity" (effectively an unwritten requirement here). Phenomenon has two meanings:

(1) scientifically speaking: an objectively observable process such as viral behavior of a video,

versus

(2) popularly speaking: impressively überpopular, for example, massively viewed videos.

I was thinking of viral videos--mentioned in the lead sentence of the article--according to the first definition, which qualify videos by viral behavior, which the Obama/Osama-Spoof video fulfills, and also has notable though not record-shattering views. If the facts and a reasonable number of reliable national+ sources support that definition of phenomenon then perhaps this article should have many more videos listed. Second alternative: Change the title and lead paragraph of this article to be more precisely descriptive of the way the article is being administered. Third alternative: begin a separate article titled "Videos displaying viral behavior" (or similar). It doesn't look like any of these alternatives are quick or easy enough to be likely outcomes. But thanks for reading!

P.S. Sadly, the process favors including trashy-but-überviewed videos, but not creative videos that achieve notability within their more intelligent (less-mass-market) genres.

P.P.S. For the record, the national/international references have more than "here's a funny video"; I also included some minor references (in the paragraph beginning "Video views were possible...") to show the video's viral behavior and popular response, and not for proving substantive notability. RCraig09 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that asserts (not your own calcs from YouTube pageviews) that the video has broken viewership records? And we're talking all time, not just in the period it was released. I mean, I've seen other videos with millions of views in a day or so, and this appears to only have 3M now one week out - which is certainly popular but not at a pace that would be comparable to other videos we've listed. And again, coupled with weak sourcing right now about being viral, its really hard to classify it with other videos. This is not to discourage you from finding better sources to assert that, but again, you have sorta identified it: we're not looking at quality of production of the video, but the quality of the product being truly viral or a meme. It is a borderline case that basically only needs a bit of a push to get it better. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The YouTube video page itself has had plenty of "honors" (still 2nd top favorited comedy vid for the month) but "Honors" aren't archived by WebCite (technical reason). YouTube discontinued separate page listings for "most favorited," "highest rated," etc. pages, so the only pages I documented in real time are those referenced in the article: "fifth most viewed video across all cetegories" and "#1 most Popular Around the Web" (now still #5). Viral behavior is implied by these honors and other statistics, but is not stated by YouTube. Problem: It requires subjective judgment to say a video had a remarkable number of views for its genre so for the time being, Groundhog triumphs. :\ RCraig09 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

-I completely agree with Masem, not an internet phenomenon at all, its just a popular video, an internet phenomenon is when it gets to the point that people are quoting it on forums especially now. Think about it, in a month from now, is an Obama quotes video gonna be something people search on Wikipedia? 15 May 2011 NexCarnifex

--Internet memes don't just happen once, they add something to internet culture and linger for a bit, this video does neither, it's a just a popular quotes video that I have never even heard of (and i spend a lot of time on the internet). If it were internet phenomenon there would be more than 1 article talking about it at least, but clearly it isn't that interesting or notable. It was a cool stupid video that got a small amount of views of youtube (it really isn't that many considering so many other youtube videos) and now is not relevant AT ALL, and there is absolutely no reason to include it on this list.Nex Carnifex (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Locked?

Is this article locked from edits? I don't see any banners or a lock on the page, but I also don't see the option to edit the page either. I just came to change the link for "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" because a search brings you here and not to the actual artist who created the song. I think they should link the other way around because the artist's page mentions that the song became an internet phenomenon. Without his creation of the song, the banana wouldn't exist!! But that seems less important now... If the page is locked or edits need to be suggested for this article, I DO support that because everyone who posts a YouTube video and gets a little attention is not an "internet phenomenon." And from reading the history, it looks like this page is being attacked by WikiJerks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.244.254 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

When a confirmed (non-anonymous) user clicks on "Edit" there is a message "This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need any help getting started with editing, see the New contributors' help page." RCraig09 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry On

Do you think that Keep Calm and Carry On counts as an internet phenomenom that should be added to the list? Even though it started as a poster in real life, most of the spoofs and parodies do seem to be online.

91.84.13.71 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How To Build An Atomic Bomb

Al Qaeda and a British news reporter were duped into thinking a joke from Annals of Improbable Research, was real plans on how to build an atomic device. http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-11-20/news/al-qaeda-duped/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.5.177 (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

just a vocabulary note

Just wanted to mention the use of the word circumventing in the Creepypasta section under other. circumventing is avoiding or bypassing. I think a better word would be circulating. just a suggestion. 65.116.167.2 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)katie

10006.

What about the "10006." lot, there's quite a far few on YouTube? Just type in "10006.MID" or "10006.GMOD"--92.237.88.53 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Creepy cricket fan

I think the Creepy Cricket Fan video probably qualifies for inclusion. It has received major media coverage (I picked Metro's story at random), plus it's a little different from many other memes in that this was actually originally broadcast internationally via Sky Sports. If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, here's an example of the original video on YouTube: [2] . Someone's even done a Hitler rant clip about it, I see. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Some others.

Here some other examples we maybe should put in:

SPONGEBOB: Many scenes from Spongebob have become famous on YouTube and caused many other videos to mke parodies. These are "Patrick catches the Ugly", "Deuueaugh" and "*Insert name here* drops in Squidward's house".

REN AND STIMPY: The same thing with the "You dare not agree with *Insert name here*" scene from one episode.

Also, there is a real hype on YouTube with videos including the phase "What the fuck Boom!", usually written WTF BOOM!

--84.113.33.181 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Being popular on YouTube dose not mean they are notable. You need to present external references to back up the claims. News and articles about the videos would be useful. Kyle1278 03:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Deuueaugh

you Dare not agree with *Insert Name Here*

Patrick catches the Ugly

*Insert Name Here* Drops in Squidward's House

WTF Boom!

Is that enough? --84.113.33.181 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Know Your Meme is not acceptable as it is a blog-like site that anyone can contribute to. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So wikipedia is also not acceptable.--190.22.98.81 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)--190.22.98.81 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on, know the difference. There are lots of other editors here who check to see if the info is backed up by reliable sources. Know Your Meme has none of that - its a warehouse where everyone throws in a meme and more often than not it isn't a meme, or it isn't a notable one. Work with us, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Granted, KYM's moderators, when they "promote" a meme from submitted to confirmed, try to add sourcing to make it better, but the site is still a very far cry from being reliable due to the strong participatory nature. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 11 October 2011

Category Music, Little superstar The dancing short indian actor name is king-kong (according to movie credits) and not thavakkalai.

2.218.177.55 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I'd suggest this be taken to Talk:Little Superstar and/or Talk:Athisaya Piravi for clarification. --Trevj (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote:

Wii Fit Girl – A video entitled "Why every guy should buy their girlfriend a Wii Fit" showing 25-year-old Lauren Bernat hula hooping with the fitness video game in only her t-shirt and panties.

Petition to change the word "panties" to the less Americanised term "underwear".

Scruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruce (talk • contribs) 11:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 October 2011

Following entry has wrong geographic location. The incident happened in Iraq, not Hawaii.

• Puppy-throwing Marine viral video – A viral video from March 2008 of a US Marine stationed in Hawaii throwing a puppy off of a cliff.

Corrected version:

• Puppy-throwing Marine viral video – A viral video from March 2008 of a US Marine on patrol in Iraq throwing a puppy off of a cliff.

Vologases121 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Yeah, that's a good change. Thanks for improving Wikipedia. mabdul 19:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Testa

Should that Chuck Testa guy be added? There are plenty of sources to create an article about him if someone wants to do it and I hear he is becoming quite popular with that commericial of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happymeal33 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Downfall and Hitler Rage

These two sections under the 'video heading are talking about the same thing. 70.56.115.74 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Brian Scalabrine

Dozens of NBA videos on YouTube have comments that jokingly call Brian Scalabrine of the Chicago Bulls one of the best NBA players, though he is really one of the worst. Could this count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.21.11 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos by themselves do not provide sufficient evidence that a meme is notable. You need to find reliable citations in the news media. WTF? (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Heskey time

There's a viral vid thats gained over 800,000 views, and 98% likes, that is made by user KSIOlajideBT, called Heskey time, which is a song/fifa 12 advert about footballer Emile Heskey. It even appeared in the itunes chart top 100 briefly during the xmas period, and has recieved rave reviews. Please put it on the list of internet phenomena.--86.174.77.94 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad Grammar in "Arrow to the Knee" Definition

The Arrow to the Knee meme, a dear favorite of mine, is described as: Arrow to the Knee - A guard in Skyrim informs the player, "at first I was an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee." This line has been repeated many times throughout the game and it became an internet meme.

It seems like it was written by a non- english speaker, along with it having incorrect quote of what is actually said. I feel that it would be more correct to say:

Arrow to the Knee- Guards in the popular Bethesda (link to Bethesda page) game Skyrim occasionally say, "I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee." Within days of the game's release on (date needed) this became an Internet Meme (link to Internet Meme page), and has been repeated many times in various forms.

Just thought I'd point this out, as I can't edit the page.

WatermelonSoup (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Katawa Shoujo

nuff said 97.103.214.234 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - enough said. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FFUUU rage guy thing is missing! What about pingas? Thats huge still on the internet!

It is also a big internet phenomena! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.235.45 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - Not without reliable sources it isn't. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Images, hey why you no identify this as an internet meme?

There is a Y U No type of internet meme that has become prominently posted over over the web. This image is described as follows: On a sky-blue background with a cartoony white figure with a nose pointing down showing eyes detracted from each other with stick-like arms and hands flipped over so the palms are seen atop. So again Y U No discuss this on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.135.192 (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What people think I do meme

This meme went viral in February 2012 and garnered thousands of versions within two weeks. A compilation can be found at: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-people-think-i-do-what-i-really-do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelm27 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Over 9000 memes

How the hell do you not have over 9000 on this thing? It is one of the most abused memes to have come into existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Memes?

The memes from this game are so well known, why aren't they in the memes/phenomina page? I have some sources to check out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.63 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
(Comment shifted from Talk:CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series -Thibbs (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

Kony 2012

Someone should definitely add this.--Pokélova (Pokémon Lover) (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No reliable sources to describe it as an internet phenomena. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources are popping up by the hour:

• Telegraph: "most successful viral video of all time"
• CNN: "most viral YouTube video of all time"
• Wall Street Journal: " the most viral video to date"

Does someone want to do the honors? RCraig09 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, someone put this in. Scruce (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added it, definitely that's sourced. --MASEM (t) 09:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Shoop da Whoop

What happened to shoop da whoop in the article? Many people has forgotten about Shoop da Whoop since the page is created! >:O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.251.164 (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball

Editors watching this page should be aware of the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball and take that into consideration when determining whether the Polandball meme is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in this list. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily specific to Polandball, but this list does not require the meme/phenom to be notable and have its own article, but that at least one or more sources have identified it as an internet phenom. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So the difference would be that to have an article would require "signifcant" coverage, but for this article all the would be needed is passing/fleeting/trivial coverage? I could see that as a possible distinction, but doesnt that doom this list as a pretty near indiscriminate list of non encyclopedic value? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Arrow to the Knee

There is a meme originating from this game. It is about town guards talking to the player about him/her being an adventurer like the player is, then he/she took an arrow to the knee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.240.93 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2012‎ (UTC)

got a source? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I just went and added a whole entry on the meme. It just needs to be cleaned up a bit since some sources aren't exactly reliable sources, but provide the citation of the various events that occurred in relation to the meme's development and spread. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We're not just here listing memes - that would fill this page several times over. We're looking for ones that are considered internet phenomena by mass media. We cannot use KYM since that is user-submitted content, we can't use vidoes or other works that happen to be the meme as opposed to explaining the meme, and we can't use forums at all. Now, as this is a video game, while there are reliable video game sites that talk about Arrow to the Knee as a meme, that's a bit of navel gazing (since it's video games talking about video games) and not the type of examples of sources to assert that it is an internet phenomena. I've looked, and yet to see a mainstream news source provide this type of statement. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Main reason it isn't reported by major news sources is because it's an actual "meme" (that is childish, immature, or funny) and it's from a video game. Systemic bias, but who cares - M0rphzone (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And this is for "phenomena", not so much memes (though memes can be phenomena). The sources provided for Arrow to the Knee, buried in comments, are from video game reporting sources - not independent of gaming memes - and otherwise to user-contrib sites like Reddit and KYM, which don't work. I've double-checked on Google news and still can't find anything from a non-gaming website. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this source good enough then? And this one? These should be reliable sources. Currently, there are 12 attested references for this single entry (but some considered "unreliable" because it's user-generated content, unprofessionally published, from unconventional sources, topic-related). It's overkill... if it's being applied to real life, how is this not notable/reliable? Try not to make things biased here, just letting you know.

Additional comments: A gaming related site should be "reliable" enough anyways to be used along with at least one reliable source; there are at least two sources right now that seem "reliable". And I don't see why the Google search statistics data can't complement the sources to back up what the sentences claim. The statistics are clear enough, and the trends they show support what is being stated. With such topics as these involving "immature/sub-genre" topics, I really think that such sources like statistics and votes (the number of upvotes/downvotes on an entry) should be allowed to provide complementary evidence to support the sources being provided. If a user-contributed site such as Urban Dictionary or other sites utilize an upvote system, we should be able to use that user-checked content for providing complementary sources to support the sentences being stated. If they didn't have the majority of upvotes, then of course that entry is wrong. If there is a majority of upvotes verifying the entry, then that should be enough "evidence" shouldn't it? - M0rphzone (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable. We are looking for major national/internation newspapers, magazines, and the like to get away from sources that are just about the Internet, as those aren't independent. And we automatically dismiss any claims of notability or importance simply based on viewership or similar audience numbers - unless said above sources note that as outlyiers and thus of interest. Just because a video may have 60 million views doesn't make it a phenomena -- until a reliable source says it is, otherwise is flat out original research. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The majority of sources used here have print editions... This source should work then, since the other sources aren't quite "independent from Internet-related topics". - M0rphzone (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Forever Alone and Trollface

Why aren't these included on the list? These are two of the most popular internet memes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not documented by any reliable sources. Just being popular doesn't merit inclusion on this list. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowyourmeme.com lists both in its database. Trollface[3]. Forever Alone[4].

Not to mention that there are also tons of YouTube videos, Google Image results, and listings on forums pertaining to both memes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As the top of this talk page states: KYM is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content. Page counts or views are also not reliable indicators for inclusion here. (That said: I do wonder if the general Rage Comic images (that these are part of) could be...) --MASEM (t) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

NYTimes just covered rage comics so that's been added. I've called out trollface and forever alone there but they can't get their own entries. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Angry German Kid parodies

Why is "Angry German Kid parodies" not on the list? There are more of them than there are Downfall parodies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.150.28 (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reliable sources to include with "Angry German Kid parodies"? If not, there is your question, answered. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And why in the world would reliable news sites cover something like this? It's funny alright, but the audience is laughing at people (i.e. making fun of something), which isn't exactly good thing/nice behavior. There are some things which may be funny, but it's downright bad; no reliable news site would cover these types of "lulz" memes. But if it's big enough, it may be reported and grouped into the "trolling"/"griefing" category - once again, systemic bias. - M0rphzone 00:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was the person who originally wrote Talk:List of Internet phenomena/FAQ, and I am aware of the dilemma that we currently have here. The thing is, Wikipedia is built upon policies such as WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR - technically we cannot include entries that do not have their notability verified by reliable sources in order to prevent original research, which is prohibited for obvious reasons. The problem is, that's not how internet memes work. Internet memes become prolific based on what internet users do with the memes, and not how they're reported by The New York Times. In essence, this article, List of Internet phenomena, is somewhat of a fallacy, because under Wikipedia policy we're only allowed to include entries that seedy, uncool 40-year old men have written about in (insert newspaper here), and anything here is at the mercy of journalists, which is not what memes are about. Journalists only choose what they want to report, and their words may not necessarily reflect the reality situation of what internet memes are like. Have fun trying to explain that to WP:Village pump though. I am a right-wing adherent of Wikipedia policy, however I must state that this article has become worth no more than shit (you may as well rename it "List of Internet phenomena that caught the interest of 40-year old hairy men working for newspaper companies"), simply as a result of Wikipedia policy; I guess it can't be helped. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't be helped? Wikipedia policy needs to be updated to reflect Internet-related topics that are not touched upon by traditional paper-to-website news sources. Raw statistics data should be allowed to be used for supporting claims by providing evidence that something happened while additional sources explain and support the reasons/explanations. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WP can only report on what reliable sources identify as important. If the average day-to-day happens on the Internet such as in the form of memes aren't covered by reliable sources away from the internet, that's unfortunate, life goes on. Besides, this is meant to be examples, not a full listing. Sites like KYM exist for satisfy the curiousity of all identified memes; it's not WP job to fully qualify them. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

^"This user is a professional gamer." \o/ but you're a sysop too, so you play by the "rules" :/ But who says we can't and shouldn't ignore them when they get in the way of improving WP? (No need to reply btw). - M0rphzone (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

After adding a few others I thought unsourcable until I stumbled on them, I found some reasonable sources for the AGK, so up it is. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Under "Email", wot about Craig Shergold (or Sherwood, or Sherman, etc.)

This was an internet legend that came out at about the same time as the Marcus-Neimann Cookie recipe. Craig was a little boy in England who at the time was supposedly dying of cancer and wanted to make a name for himself in the Guiness Book or Records as the holder of the most business cards. My understanding is that he went into remission and at this time would like everyone to stop sending him their business cards. He apparently is also no longer a "little boy" either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.38.47 (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Having received over 350 million greeting cards today and making it into Guinness Book is certainly notable, though Craig Shergold himself just wants the damn mail to stop. Added to the list, since this is most definitely an "internet phenomena". WTF? (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2012

Can you add an entry to the music section called "Call Me Maybe"? The Description is "“Call Me Maybe” - a pop song by Canadian singer-songwriter Carly Rae Jepsen from her 2012 EP album Curiousity. The song rose to fame online after being promoted by pop star Justin Bieber in December of 2011. Since its release, the song has inspired many lip dubs, parodies and covers on the video sharing site YouTube."

For the "Angry German Kid / Keyboard Crasher" can you add ..."The video was uploaded on April,12 2006 and was intended for parents who are concerned about their children what will happen to their child who are playing violent video games and the side effects caused by the Columbine Shootings on April,20 1999

Idiotboyxbox360 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

---

References

---

A citation that meets WP:RS is required to make such a claim in order for that information to be listed. If you can find a citation in a regular news outlet, it could possibly be added. WTF? (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I almost didn't notice you adding the link the a youtube video in a REF tag on your previous posts, since REF tags don't show up in talk pages. Nevertheless, that is NOT a reliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Very, very, very few things posted to Youtube qualify as "reliable sources" (I suggest you read WP:RS). In this case, the video was uploaded by someone using the username of "PolskaRezystans", who also put a rather official-looking "WPLS-TV" attribution in his amateur-looking video. A google search for "WPLS-TV" reveals that this is not mainstream media outlet. Since we have no way to verify the credentials or journalistic integreity of "PolskaRezystans", nor do we know who this person actually is, the source cannot be considered credible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Merely being a "Youtube personality" and claiming to have "one of the more unique channels on Youtube" does not establish journalistic credibility.

Also, a google search for the terms "Angry German Kid"+"Columbine shootings" only reveals nine hits, none of which go to credible sources. So it is highly unlikely that statement above is credible. WTF? (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the reflist and marked the edit protected again as answered. mabdul 16:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Creepypasta

Could the example for creepypasta be changed? I mean Smile Dog is notable, but without question the Slender Man is the most famous example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.62.227 (talk • contribs)

No citation was found for the 'smile dog' that was mentioned, though there are lots of images of that posted on the Internet. I revised the text using the scary girl image in the New York Times article, and also found a citation mentioning slender man, which was also added. I also removed the wikilink on Creepypasta, which went to someone's description in their userspace and not to an actual article. It's not acceptable to link to things in userspace from article mainspace. WTF? (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

CWC

Could Christian Weston Chandler be included here? Aperseghin (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried looking for articles on this person. There does seem to be a few, but all are in a very disparging tone to the person, and thus I'd fear inclusion may be a WP:BLP issue. (Eg: for the Star Wars Kid while it is possible to actually go outside WP and find his real name (in recent sources too), we don't attach it because of the negative connotations of that video to that person. This would seem to be the same case). If you have sourced that put him as an internet phenom in a positive like (more akin to something like Tron Guy) that would work, but we need those sources. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

completely understood, he is famous for being an often trolled buffoon so meybe we should leave him out. Aperseghin (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is best to leave his name out. Furthermore, the purpose of this page is not to make "celebrities" out of heretofore unknown random Internet users, but to document the truly novel Internet phenomena that arises online. An actual person need not be involved, although I think that there is an inherent tendency of people to want to make someone into a "celebrity" this way. WTF? (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, i dont know where you have been, but CWC is VERY well known but for all the wrong reasons for this article i guess. Aperseghin (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2012

The description of Creepypasta is no longer accurate, given that it has evolved past this. The text that's currently in the article refers to the genre's earlier times, but Creepypasta is now much more defined and encompasses more types of stories.

To fix this without going into unnecessary detail, you could do the following two modifications. First, add "Initially..." to the beginning of the first sentence, to get "Initially urban legends or scary stories...", and change the verbs in that paragraph to past tense. Then add a sentence at the end that says "In recent years, Creepypasta have evolved into any scary, creepy or otherwise unsettling stories posted on the Internet, as can be seen in websites like www.creepypasta.com and www.creepypastaindex.com."

It might be best to actually embed those two links at the end, but I wouldn't know how to do that. Gr33nshorts (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless we have reliable sources that point to these sites or how its changed, we can't add it here. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does this not even have a lock?

Why are certain pages on wikipedia not shown with why they are protected? We cant have people exploiting this article and removing the locks like they did in black history month, this is unacceptable.184.98.143.25 (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In order to promote the mantra that Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", 99.9% of pages are left unlocked and open for anyone to edit. There are a handful of articles that are frequently vandalized -- this is one of them -- and for those reasons, page protection is enabled for select pages that have historically had a problem with vandalism.

As for the image of a lock in the upper right corner, that is associated with page protection and displayed on all protected pages. But it is an image, and I have noticed some people mis-using the image by placing it on pages to make them appear to be protected, while not actually protecting the page. Only administrators can protect a page from editing; placing the image on the page can be done by any user (although that is wrong and should not be done, and could get you banned). WTF? (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairy Bounce

This animation, known as Fairy Bounce, originated from an arcade puzzle game named Magical Drop from the late 1990s. It featured a 3-eyed girl wearing a floating towel named The World, 21st Arcana from the Tarot Card game.

The animation was borrowed by mature websites, who changed the colors and eliminated the 3rd eye to avoid copyright. Unsurprisingly enough, it started a meme where colors and/or clothing were modified.

Since few people knew where the animation had originated, it came to be known as The Fairy Bounce meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.115.255 (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source in a major media outlet for this "meme", then it can be added. But that responsibility lies with you -- others are not going to look for attribution to back things up for you. WTF? (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Adonis DNA

http://www.adonisdna.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.84.221 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Lootie

Lootie redirects here but is not present in the article. (Heineken flood looter) -- DMahalko (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

He's there. Look under 'images'. He's listed as "Heineken Looter Guy". I've never heard him described as, "Lootie", before. WTF? (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've heard Lootie. The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of Muslims

I was about to add this video, which is what has led to the current protests in the Middle East. It certainly has sources but its more a question on the broader aspect of this list as to whether it is an "internet phenomena". It certainly created a huge backlash but this effectively is no different when that newspaper published cartoons of Mohammad. Any thoughts? --MASEM (t) 20:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider the film's (1) source, (2) spreading, and (3) effect. My understanding is that the source of the film (or at least the trailers that still remain) was YouTube, though it also had a physical theater "premiere" to a microscopic "audience" (~ten people). It was almost certainly not shown in "theaters" in the Muslim world, and therefore was probably spread via the Internet in the Muslim world as well. This Wikipedia article lists things that generally are sourced and spread via the Internet—as is this film. However, the film's effects are mostly in the physical world but not so much within the Internet itself—the film though not the trailers having been removed from YouTube; it has not caused "copycat videos" like a meme would; etc. Therefore I perceive the issue to whether this Wikipedia article should include phenomena that have an effect essentially limited to being outside the Internet. Aside: These facts may change over time, and thereby change one's conclusion as to whether the film should be included here. RCraig09 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Further observation: the initial paragraph of this article, which appears to be a "defining paragraph," seems to focus on the way in which the phenomenon is spread. If this is a decisive factor, it would favor this film for inclusion. RCraig09 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)