Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

The topic is an Internet meme concerning nationalist stereotypes about Poland, an Eastern European country. As experienced editors will know, Wikipedia has a long history of disruptive conduct related to nationalist disputes in Eastern Europe; compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. I therefore disregard all opinions by IP accounts or those with very few contributions and by editors who have block log entries for problematic conduct with respect to Eastern Europe, on the basis that this is the easiest way to filter out (a) opinions and walls-of-text based on nationalist prejudice and (b) some of the canvassing that in my experience takes place in this sort of dispute. I'm also discounting the WP:JUSTAVOTE by Doc9871, as well as the opinions by Night of the Big Wind and Pultusk, who do not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion (i.e. notability and sourcing).

After doing that, the headcount is: delete 16, keep 6. This means I need to decide whether any of the "keep" arguments are so strong, or any of the "delete" arguments so weak, that they prevent me from finding a consensus for deletion. That is not the case. The discussion is mostly about the number and quality of sources that could make the topic pass WP:N. The "keep" opinions argue that reliable sources about the topic exist, while the "delete" side argues that there is too little reliable or significant coverage, or that it is too transient. These are all valid arguments and it is not for me to judge who is right. On that basis, the numbers prevail and I find that there is consensus to delete the article. There is also another consideration, which is not decisive but supports this outcome: The contentious nature and difficult sourcing situation of this article, as seen in this discussion and the resulting WP:AE request, is likely to produce continued disputes and disruption if it is kept.  Sandstein  21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Polandball

Polandball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable internet injoke or meme. Wikipedia is not knowyourmeme. We do not have to document each and every one. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE – This discussion may have been influenced by canvassing on an external Internet forum. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All I see there is a passing mention of and link to the DYK in broader discussion. No mention of or link to this AfD, no "please come put your input in". Just running commentary. Perhaps a small number of users poked around for a few seconds and found this, but there's really nothing there that indicates clear canvassing. Furthermore, the article has been tagged for days now, so your silly little note just looks like you trying to play news reporter. Sorry, sweetheart, you've been scooped. Run along, now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, consider a similar sudden incoming of editors that the Zhirinovsky's ass article has seen recently (with at least 3 from WF/WR), and note sheer numbers of known EEML editors here (at least 4, and even User:Hodja Nasreddin is here, with more people involved in related discussions), as well as Wikipediaforum or Wikipediareview editors here (at least 4 known), and that most of those are among the most commenting here... GreyHood ^Talk 14:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, none of the EEML editors should be commenting here at all, as they are all under an interaction ban with the creator of the article, Russavia. It may be that if they did not participate here the outcome might be different, possible less desirable. This is a calculated risk the Arbitration Committee took when it imposed the IBAN. If you do not like it, complain to them. It should also be noted, that as this article was nominated for DYK it would have received all the needed scrutiny, even without the participation of the editors involved in the WP:EEML case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you had paid one whit of attention when you left your ridiculous "me-too!" comment at the current AE request, you will find that the administrative community is not wholly convinced that AfD participation is an iBan® violation. Furthermore, you seem to be making a blatantly dishonest attempt to characterise the iBan® as being directed as those evil EEMLers, when it applies just as equally to R, whose emblazoning of a cartoon lampooning Polish editors across his userpage can only reasonably be interpreted as baiting of those he is under an interaction ban with, your brain-dead defence of that action notwithstanding. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

EEML is dead and gone, unless you have a hell of lot of evidence to back up your seeming insinuations that there is still behind-the-scenes collusion going on there. Former EEML members edit mainly on, well, Eastern European topics. Last I checked, Poland was indeed in Eastern Europe. And if we are to discount editors who have been involved in this topic area in the past, we should probably kick your ass (ha-ha) to the curb as well, given the fact that you have been R's wingman on more than a few occasions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

EEML here is used not as a reference to the EEML arbitration case itself, but to refer to the specific group of editors who have placed under an interaction ban with Russavia by the Arbitration Committee (in another decision). We could as well call them the RU-IBAN group. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you—of all people—really want to be throwing around ArbCom context? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The article is clearly referenced to numerous reliable sources, so it easily passes WP:GNG. This nomination seems to be an attempt to keep the article from appearing at DYK on 1 April as per Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Polandball. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of any DYK nominations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. But did you check any of the sources which show that the meme is notable? It is more than notable, and I have even used the Polish sources to establish this notability. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Alternatively, it could fit into List of Internet phenomena with Polandball being a redirect. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably not, because there is enough details already for a stand alone article. But thanks for that list, I'll add Polandball to it with a link to the article. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. There is not a single reliable source in the article. Just click the " news · books · scholar · JSTOR " links above. News: [1] barely 3 results, which are forum comments or unrelated. Books: [2] zero relevant links. Scholar zero: [3]. JSTOR: [4] zero. The article itself has some sources but none of these are reliable or notable, though that may not be obvious to non-Polish speakers. First source [5] is an essay by a first year undergraduate student at a Polish university or something (I'm not even sure why this stuff is up on the internet) - clearly not a reliable source. Second source [6] is simply a Polish blog. Who the hell cares? Third source (Przeglad) is another blog/opinion piece. Next source [7] is also a blog which mentions the subject in passing. [8] is an opinion piece in a newspaper. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources nor are they sufficient to establish notability.

Now, if Wikipedia was oh internet or Encyclopedia Dramatica then yeah, sure, the inclusion of a racist internet memes would be justifiable. But last I checked this is an encyclopedia not a troll site - let the troll sites do what they do, and let the online encyclopedia be an encyclopedia. There's no indication that this particular internet meme has achieved sufficient status to have been picked up by reliable sources, much less any reason why the Wikipedia needs to suffer any kind of embarrassment by featuring bigotry on its front page (the article has been nominated for DYK). There's been enough embarrassing SNAFUs with respect to DYK lately. This article should be deleted, never mind being featured on the front page.

(For the sake of clarification: I happen to think that some of the Polandball cartoons are actually pretty funny. At the same time, the few and in between funny versions of the joke are much outnumbered by the fact that it's a kind of medium which easily lends itself to 13 year old internet morons giving vent to their racist and xenophobic stupidity. Unfortunetly most of the cartoons out there reflect that. What's next, racist offensive "Negro jokes" on Wikipedia's front page, simply because they may or may not be an "internet meme" some users find them humorous, and because it's "April Fools" so things which are otherwise considered obnoxious and offensive are "ok"? Whole thing is a disgrace.VolunteerMarek 05:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If opinion pieces can not be reliable sources, why does WP:RSOPINION say the opposite? You're making up the rule that they don't establish notability. Coverage at critical reviews is frequently used as a factor for the notability of films, books and works of art, so why not internet memes? Diego (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the lack of notability. However, the content of the jokes should not be relevant. It's simply an issue of lack of notability for me. Wikipedia should not document each and every internet injoke out there. There are other sites and Wikis devoted to that. If this joke had reached the level of notability as, say the song "Friday" then I would have no problems with it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there's two problems here. One is just the basic non-notability of the article itself. The other is the DYK nomination. Aside from some other issues in the background, it should be mentioned that even the place where this supposed meme supposedly originated is itself not even notable, apparantly. Krautchan.net simply redirects to Imageboard. This is scraping the bottom of some internet barrel for sake of "lulz".VolunteerMarek 06:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment In relation to the above comments about unreliable sources, ignoring irrelevant rants, the following needs to be made known. Gazeta Wyborcza is a leading Polish newspaper, and Wojciech Orliński is one of the newspapers regular columnists. So his article more than means our WP:RS guideline. The article discusses the meme in depth. Cooltura is a weekly Polish cultural magazine published in the UK, and the article in it was republished by numerous other Polish sources, such as Interia.pl (one of Poland's largest web portals), so again is a reliable source. Claims that this source only mentions the subject in passing is totally wrong -- the article is discussing the meme in depth. Przegląd is a weekly Polish magazine, and does meet the threshold of a reliable source. This article is on the subject of internet memes, and has information on Polandball. Hiro appears to be a weekly Polish magazine as well. This article is one the subject of internet memes, and delves a little into two memes which relate to Poland---Polandball being one of those. As to accusations of racism, etc, the Cooltura article starts off with "Ostatnia internetowa moda wyśmiewająca Polskę i naszą flagę narodową, która szerzy się w cyberprzestrzeni to kolejny dowód na stale tlący się w kręgach zachodnich elit i wśród społeczeństw ideologiczny antypolonizm. Albo nie. W każdym razie obrażamy się jako pierwsi, zanim etatowi polonijni moraliści zapłoną świętym ogniem oburzenia. A potem, jak zwykle, spłoną ze wstydu." Translate it for yourselves, and see what is written. It would be great if people didn't mispresent sources like they have above. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore If one refers to pl:Wojciech Orliński it states "Od 1997 pracuje w "Gazecie Wyborczej", gdzie pisze głównie na tematy związane z kulturą masową." -- this states that since 1997, Orlinski has been a columnist with Gazeta Wyborcza, where he writes mainly on popular culture. Polandball is clearly popularly culture. His article has been passed off above as just some oped in a newspaper, but rather it is the complete opposite. It is an article on the meme, written by a notable journalist, who's field of expertise is pop culture, and published in one of the largest Polish newspapers. It's also not an opinion piece, it is a detailed article on the actual meme. Sorry, just need to detail the mischaracterisation of sources as was done above. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The comments above are false and they misrepresent the sources. However, since myself and the author of the comments are subject to an interaction ban I am unable to provide a fully detailed adequate comment in response - bottomline though is that these are in fact just blogs and opinion pieces, not reliable source, and this can be easily verified. The fact that the above comments are explicitly replying to my comments is a direct violation of his interaction ban with me, per WP:IBAN which states that a user under an interaction ban is not allowed to reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;. Note that none of my comments referenced anything but the article itself.

At this point I find myself in an impossible position. If I address the comments made above (which are a clear violation of an interaction ban), then I risk violating the ban myself. If I don't address them then the person who violated an interaction ban "wins". My only recourse at this point would be to file an Arbitration Enforcement request against the user but I hope that it doesn't have to get to that.VolunteerMarek 07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you two have stated your views. We can allow for other people to judge the your positions. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup.VolunteerMarek 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - numerous sources have been provided, including Polish newspaper articles. Estlandia (dialogue) 10:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Named sources" =/ "reliable sources". The "Polish newspaper article" is an opinion piece which merely mentions the thing in passing.VolunteerMarek 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - one of the most notable memes on the Internet. I think it would not be reasonable to expect to have tons of scholarly sources on a meme subject, and otherwise it is well-sourced. GreyHood ^Talk 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You can "expect" to have tons of scholarly sources all you want, but until they actually exist, it's not notable. See WP:CRYSTAL.VolunteerMarek 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to answer you before, VM. Apparently you have plainly misunderstood what I wrote. WP:CRYSTAL has no any relevance here. My point is obvious: memes, just as some other categories of subjects (recent events; many products of popular culture, especially modern ones) tend not to be covered by scholarly sources. And that's normal and not making memes less notable - often they remain much more notable than all those hundreds of thousands articles on little-known sportspeople or scientists. At least such is the reality. Then, for the meme which appeared just few years ago, this article has enough sources establishing the notability, and these sources are of decent level considering the kind of topic - and what we have is Polish (sic!) newspaper articles in the top-level Polish newspapers. Opinion pieces or not, does not matter as long as content is approved and edited by notable media. Anyway, it is quite obvious that memes and many other aspects of popular culture would not be covered neither by scholarly sources, nor by recent news. So we remain only with such categories as analysis / educational articles / opinion pieces / entertainment. And the article by Orliński is serious and detailed enough to be considered an educational and informational article, not an opinion piece - it conveys a quality description of what Polandball is and how it originated. GreyHood ^Talk 20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The thing is, it actually does matter whether they are opinion pieces or not. Generally, opinion pieces - and it's easy to see that the Orlinski source is in the "Opinie" section of the paper - are not considered reliable sources, nor are they sufficient to establish notability. So we actually DON'T have "Polish (sic!) newspaper articles in the top-level Polish newspapers" here - we have one opinion piece from such a newspaper (Przeglad isn't a "top level Polish newspaper" anyway, it's more comparable, though with different politics, to something like Najwyższy Czas! in terms of circulation and non-mainstreamness (though at a different point in the political spectrum), which is itself probably not a reliable source overall. There's a possibility of confusion here though - before 1999 there was a magazine called Przeglad which was significant, but these are essentially different papers)VolunteerMarek 09:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion pieces at reliable sources are valid for establishing notability, they have always been. The only caveat for their use is that they're identified as such when used to verify information in the article. Diego (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep knowyourmeme is not a sanction for deletion. I see enough sources to assert notability. Inclusion criteria does not require academic sources and also Google scholar is an imperfect search engine and cannot be trusted as a perfect representation of all academic research. PhD thesis coverage for any topic may not necessarily be indexed in Google Scholar particularly if the publication is on paper-only with no internet presence. Also there is one work (in Polish) that is most curious and is prepared by someone from Rzeszów University. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  You can't seriously be saying that there are scholarly works on this subject which have somehow been missed by google scholar. There aren't. And like I already pointed out that work from "Rzeszów University" is just some paper some undergrad wrote which happened to get put up on the internet. It's not a scholarly paper at all. There's not a single reliable source in the article.VolunteerMarek 16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes I can. Not all academic works are archived on Google scholar. Academic works on this topic would more likely be published offline in Polish academic journals. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Source 1 looks good and there's a reasonable chance that this is being covered as a prototype of an internet meme in Polish language sources cited in the article below that. As for memes: Do we need to have articles for them all? No. Or most of them? No. Or many of them? No. This one? It is at least close enough to give me pause. The article is sufficiently well done that it should get the benefit of the doubt, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• * Keep - Polandball is a well known meme all over the internet. Even I have heard of it before the article. --Lihapulla1 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Notability as an important cultural phenomenon more than established through news articles, it seems unreasonable to expect there to be many scholarly works covering recent and specific internet culture. --GoldenMew (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-written article on a notable cultural phenomenon with ample coverage in secondary sources. Shrigley (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete.Badly written. No-notable fringe term. Sources not confirming to WP:RS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Badly written vote. **Non-notable. **Conforming. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Splendid example of a non-utile article about a non-utile meme with rather unfortunate connotations at best. Wikipedia is supposed to at least pretend that it is restricted to articles of some encyclopedic value - which this, alas, fails. Collect (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:USELESS and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC are not valid arguments for deletion. A topic is deemed worthy of includion in the encyclopedia if third-party reliable sources think that it's important enough to write significant content about it. Diego (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, the sources are badly researched at best. I don't know where the drawball story is from, but it's most probably just made up. I lurk the board in question and used to lurk it when Polandball came up, and there was never any mention of drawball concerning the origins (and allow me to make the unreasonable assumption that I know more about the memes of my home board than some journalist). Also, the scope of countryballs is now much broader, the comics stopped being exclusively about poland after a few months or so. --84.153.90.97 (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The article already mentions the fact that it has generalized to 'countryball', though it is still referred to as 'Polandball'.Estlandia (dialogue) 13:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a bit hard to keep up with current usage if you have to cite news items. --84.153.90.97 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment.Delete. Plot thickens. First, it was only Polish ball, then it was Russian ball (which I, as a culturally Russian user, consider highly offensive), and finally, we have a Britball cartoon, but "Britball" is something very different. Honestly, I do not think this has anything to do with creating encyclopedic content. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Culturally Russian user" is typically a self-description by non-Russians from the former USSR. So please better clarify what your mean, otherwise your point is misleading. GreyHood ^Talk 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, I think this article qualify as an attack page and possibly WP:POINT, given the previous relations between creator(s) of the page and Polish editors. Indeed, the creation of the article evidently cased a lot of disruption on AE and various talk pages, including highly questionable comments with regards to at least three arbitrators. Is it worth it? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • You have not explained how really you are related to Russia, and that's what I was asking about. Of course you do not have to do this, and even better should not do - bringing in more personal information only tends to disrupt discussions on contentious subjects. However your point that "Culturally Russian user" finds the picture on Russia offensive remains highly dubious. GreyHood ^Talk 20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Then, there is WP:NPA: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. We discuss here the notability of the subject of the article as established by the available sources. We should not discuss the article's creator nor his relations with any other editors on wiki. Especially when it most certainly cannot be said that the poor state of those relations was caused by the actions the article's creator alone. GreyHood ^Talk 20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • • Fine, let's quote one of sources currently used in this article. It tells in 1st paragraph: Прежде доставляющая и эпичная скатилась в очередное тинэйджерское говно в 2011 году, что, в общем, было неизбежно после потери модераторами интереса к ней и роста популярности у ололокающего быдла (да, друг мой — это о тебе). That was said about "/INT/ board". "Epic shit"? "ололокающего быдла"? No, this is something we do not want in English wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • First, the notability of the article (as well is it appropriateness even for Poles) is established by articles in the top Polish newspapers which were added as sources originally - and nobody disproved the relevance or appropriateness of these sources so far. The source which you site apparently was added later to support the countryball rather than Polandball part, because the fact that currently the article seems to focus mostly on Polandball (while in reality most of the cartoons are about other countries) is irritating some users here and misleading them. This last source indeed does not use encyclopedic language and decorum, though the section on Polandball is written in more neutral way. It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced. And if you take the point made by the source seriously, you should understand that the countryball cartoons are now hosted and created on multiple sites other than krautchan, so the fate of the krautchan is not really relevant here anymore. GreyHood ^Talk 22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
              • I can not judge about Polish sources and leave it to Volunteer Marek and other Polish-speaking contributors, but Russian source is worse than blog. I do not mind when someone creates articles on controversial nationalistic subjects, even such as Georgia for Georgians by the same editor. But that particular page does not qualify as encyclopedic content, not mentioning the struggle at AE, ANI and other pages related to creation of this article. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
                • 'First, the notability of the article (as well is it appropriateness even for Poles) is established by articles in the top Polish newspapers 'Top Polish newspapers? Where? Only one here is Gazeta Wyborcza, and that's an opinion column. The rest are non-RS and neither top(in fact there is only one, to a local newspaper covering events and life of emigrants) by a very extreme author.

It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced.You do realize that by confirming that there are no reliable sources to use besides an online user generated Russian Wikimedia platform, you demonstrated pretty strongly how non-notable the subject is?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Volunteer Marek. Unconvinced by the sourcing here. JN466 16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello WR/WF user. The sourcing is solid, as has been explained above. Feigning being unconvinced by sourcing is not going to result in deletion of the article, because if it is deleted, I will file a deletion review straight away. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not feigning being unconvinced, I am unconvinced, as are the guys over in the AfD on German Wikipedia, where you created the same nonsense. I saw a post about this on Wikipediocracy days ago and wasn't interested. Today, Fæ linked to Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know#Zhirinovsky.27s_ass on Jimbo's talk, in the Zhirinovsky's section, and I saw Polandball on that page again, with your name next to it. In view of your <irony>wonderful work on Zhirinovsky's ass</irony>, I thought I'd have a look, and it's basically more of the same. --JN466 17:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The sourcing isn't solid, it's just the kind of crap journalists come up with when presented with incomplete information. Can't blame them, but they're not an encyclopedic source in this case. --84.153.92.55 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Also Jayen466, were you WP:CANVASS to participate in this discussion? That means did you come here as a result of being asked to, or it being posted on another website? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • It is my belief, Jayen446 as arrived here as a result of this post on the new Wikipediareview offshoot. His reason for the above is not credible. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 18:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • Um -- how many folks will you convince with this sort of argument? All you show so far is that you read that site. Collect (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• delete internet meme not enough notable sources--Karl.brown (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Notable sources? So the 2nd largest newspaper in Poland isn't notable enough? Another large Polish newspaper isn't notable enough? A UK-published magazine on Polish culture isn't notable enough? And a Polish magazine isn't notable enough? This is just 4 sources I found, and it is independent, in-depth coverage. Please tell us, what is a "notable source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs)
• -Delete - and indefinitely block User:Russavia for repeated violations of NPOV contributions - Non-notable internet injoke or meme. Youreallycan 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Your argument is invalid Every article I write on WP is done in an NPOV way. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I have breached NPOV. In fact, looking at the article right now, you will see that everything is sourced, and there's not a single problem with NPOV. In fact, I took extra care with this article to make it NPOV as it is. It also doesn't help people's causes saying it's non-notable, when I have shown above it is. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You are a constant NPOV violator - you and anyone who is enabling or supporting you such as User:Greyhood should be thrown out of the project immediately - and good riddance to you, you and your contributions are no better than a disruptive troll. _ Youreallycan 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:NPA: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. GreyHood ^Talk 19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I would feel better about this article if it hadn't been created by an editor who has a history of conflict with Eastern European editors (in fact, this article has become cause for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia arbitration Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba requests relating to prior WP:EEML sanctions). Even if the "countryball" cartoons have become popular within a particular internet community, the choice to write an article about "Polandball" exclusively suggests that there may be a specific agenda at work here. The user has already been chastened for placing cartoons on their userpage that could be interpreted as anti-Polish. Another ArbCom member went so far as to =483716597 remove them, but they were restored and remain there despite the concerns expressed. I would vote to delete the article, but I do not wish to be accused of being canvassed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Memes is a perfectly encyclopedic topic and everyone has a right to write an article about a meme if the meme is notable enough. Remember that here we should judge the merits of the article and its topic, not who created the article. GreyHood ^Talk 19:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment You seem to be suggesting that I am an WP:SPA and that this article is the only thing I have ever written. Hmmmmmm. Here's a few articles that I have written...a wide range of articles on a wild range of subjects. Are you suggesting that all of my editing here is agenda driven? What agenda would you say my expansion of Fucking, Austria was pushing? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off? Youreallycan 19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Russavia, I did not mean to imply that you are an SPA, or that you are not a prolific editor. Sorry if I gave that impression. I'm not sure why you ask about Fucking - is it relevant to the article under discussion here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes it is relevant. Because you stated I have an agenda. Again, what exactly is my agenda? I want an answer, otherwise your entire statement is simply a personal attack. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Also Delicious Carbuncle, please be aware of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned and Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. If you do not strike your comments that go against the letter and spirit of that Arbcom case, I will file an enforcement request on you, because your accusations of me being an agenda-driven editors is rich. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Russavia, perhaps instead of threatening other editors and milking this for even more drama, you might want to ask yourself if you simply misread the community's appetite for this type of thing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of people here seem to be plainly anti-meme. While I myself stand for inclusion of only the more notable memes to Wikipedia, the attempts to block one of the most widespread memes, which is all over the Internet, from entering Wikipedia, look most worrying, like a kind of censorship of certain topics. GreyHood ^Talk 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Racist and clearly offensive given the ruckus over at WP:AE. The handful of opinion pieces cited as sources do not give any in depth coverage beyond a single mention of the term "Polandball" in passing. --Nug (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a blatant misrepresentation of sources, sorry. Two of the articles discuss Polandball in rather extensive detail, and two more give it a prominent enough place relative to the article's size. Then, Poles are not a race, and consider that many Poles are fans of these cartoons, while the authors of at least some of the sources used in the article do not necessarily find the meme offensive. Also, most of the countryball cartoons are actually about other countries, not Poland, and any country could be an object of fun there. This is just a comix style which happened to originate from Poland but then grew into something bigger. GreyHood ^Talk 20:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I call yet again to discuss the merits of the subject, notability and sources, not the Wikipedia users involved. Continuous breaching WP:NPA, arguments ad hominem and trying to bring personal issues on talk is only disrupting discussion. GreyHood ^Talk 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already discussed the sources. I see that the school paper written by some undegrad student which people were claiming was a reliable source from "University of Rzeszow" is no longer in the article. That's a start. However, the remaining sources are not reliable either. Is this a reliable source [9]? What is it, actually? Or this [10]? That's a "MediaWiki-powered online encyclopedia focused on Internet subcultures, folklore, and memes". This Knowyourmeme is pretty much along the same lines, another user generated "encyclopedia". Might as well allow Wikipedia articles to serve as reliable sources for each other. As far as Polish sources go this and this are essentially blogs/portals with no editorial oversight. Not reliable. There are only two POTENTIALLY reliable sources in the article, Gazeta Wyborcza and Przeglad. Both however are just opinion pieces and the second one only mentions this particular meme in passing.

Some memes are notable some aren't. If this particular one has the staying power of lulzcats or Chuck Norris jokes then in several months or a year there will be actual reliable source to document its notability. But there aren't yet. And keeping the article on the basis of what might happen in the future is simply WP:CRYSTALBALL.

I also wish to note that a lot of the "Keep" notes above appear to be along the lines of "I think it's funny and I personally heard of it, so keep" - i.e. they do not actually address Wikipedia policy on notability.VolunteerMarek 06:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable (leaving aside juvenile and racist). VolunteerMarek is correct in saying that the Polish languages sourced cited look more notable than they are, there's really only a 14 month old comment in a column by Wojciech Orliński of which large chunks are reproduced in translation in this "article" - we don't make an en.WP article out of every topic in Wojciech Orliński's GW column, and it isn't as if it featured in the news section of GW or that Wojciech Orliński has returned to the subject. At the most a redirect to a sentence on Wojciech Orliński's bio article would cover it, for those that want a link to his column, to which this translation adds nothing. No evidence of notable German sources in the parallel AfD discussion at de.w either. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment With this you have proven Polandball notability!!]]. Read our article -- it began on Krautchan.net -- Orlinski, is a Polish journalist, with a speciality in pop culture, has written an article (of which the entire article is about Polandball) and which was published by his employer, the second largest newspaper in Poland!!!! This my friend, is called in-depth, independent coverage by a reliable source. The Cooltura article (Cooltura being Polish for CULTURE), is even titled something along the lines of Now they make fun of us with...ballls. And it devotes around half of the lengthy article to the actual meme. The other two articles, both from reliable sources (one another Polish newspaper, and one another magazine) talk of memes relating to Poland, and mention Polandball explicitly as one of the two famous memes (the other being Advice Polack [which is notable too]). And you want to redirect this article to Orlinski's article? Your arguments are invalid. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per In ictu oculi. I learned of this discussion from Russavia's post on Jimbo's talk page. So, I guess Russavia indirectly canvassed me to come here. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per 'you what?' - I've read the article several times, and still not figured out what the subject is supposed to be, beyond stuff posted on the internet which uses the phrase 'Polandball' Or possibly stuff that doesn't. Is this discussed in a meaningful way in secondary sources? Who knows? Who cares?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the lead to make it more descriptive. Now it clearly shows what Polandball is. It is discussed in a meaningful way in secondary sources - they are in the article. GreyHood ^Talk 12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Not true, the lead says Polandball, also known collectively as countryballs so I still don't know what the article is about. Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete this was a toughie, because the way sources are used tries very hard to make the topic legitimate. But there is barely any content worth having beyond a sentence or two in one of the meme articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FAME and WP:NOENG. If this was sufficiently notable for an English language encyclopaedia there would be reliable, non-transient English language sources for it. As it stands the only sources provided are non-English and even those are highly dubious as described above. Sources aside the only other argument I've seen for keeping it is "I've heard of it". waggers (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOENG does not say that we require English language sources. It says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." So delete per WP:NOENG is an invalid deletion argument. If the available sources for this article meet the GNG in any language then it meets the GNG. ϢereSpielChequers 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the point is they don't really meet the GNG, and if this supposedly notable worldwide phenomenon really was notable there would surely be reliable sources in English (and several other languages) as well as Polish. waggers (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example Dmitry Gennadyevich Medvedev relies only on Russian sources, with the exception of one English source which gives information on the special op. WP:GNG simply states detailed coverage which is independent of the subject, and which are reliable. 2 Polish newspapers, 1 Polish culture magazine and 1 Polish weekly magazine more than meet GNG. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• keep Does WP do memes? Or is WP just for serious bizniz? This one isn't (yet) well known, but it does seem to have achieved notability for that niche. If we delete this, we ought to go after a whole slew of other meme articles too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL--Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete As has been so brilliantly explained above. This is not knowyourmeme, as per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot guess that a meme will become popular. Wiki is not social media. Wikipedia is not a guide to the Internet. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worthy of retention. doktorb _words^deeds 11:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I came here expecting to advocate keeping, but the above discussion has changed my mind. When you simultaneously advocate keeping and say that it's not been covered by reliable sources, you make a very good argument for deletion. We need to remember that encyclopedias are for serious business, not fly-by-night things like this. FYI, when you have something exalting Russians and demeaning Poles, your thing definitely isn't racist; the Poles and the Russians are both Slavs. Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Nyttend, please refer to this. This is my assessment of the sources. I will also release some information, that I had some assistance in translating from native Polish speakers, who confirmed for me that these are reliable sources. I got this confirmation after doing my own research on the sources. Also note the dates of the articles, in 2010, 2011. This means sustained coverage. There are likely other sources out there, but I am satisfied that there is enough already to meet WP:GNG. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete articles about memes have really been getting out of control and this is a prime example. This is not knowyourmeme. While some newspapers have been provided as refs here, coverage still does not meet wikipedia standards. Coverage is not in any sort of depth and mentions the concept in passing only. Without signifcant coverage where the topic is the subject the article and covered in some depth, it just doens't meet notability guidelines. The article seems to be here to promote the meme rather than reflect it. The claim that similar doodles using other flags be called "Polandball" regardless of which country they represent is ref'd by a single published opinion piece and seems very jingoistic here. Something that should be avoided in Wikipedia. RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There are two articles where "the topic is the subject the article and covered in some depth". The other two devote to the subject a notable parts of the text - certainly it is not mentioning "the concept in passing only". GreyHood ^Talk 12:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you be more specific? Which 2 articles do you feel demonstrate the notability of this topic and how? --RadioFan (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• [11] and [12]. The other two allocate at least one para to the discussion of the meme. GreyHood ^Talk 20:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete is this some sort of joke? (Apparently.) Fleeting non-notable internet meme with a 5-year olds level of drawing and wit is supposed to be of interest and encyclopaedic. Also, agree about majority of the sources being of dubious reliability (i.e. user-generated tat). Oh come on, lets have an article about Pooing in the bath, sure it happens, lot's of toddlers do it, hey I bet there are even some lolz sites for parents dedicated to worst nappy disasters or whatever, I'm sure paediatricians have even mentioned it in articles somewhere. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Umm the sources are of good reliability. The second largest newspaper in Poland; an article on the meme written by one of their staff writers whose expertise is "mass" (or pop) culture. Another newspaper in Poland which discusses the meme. A UK published magazine on Polish culture (the largest in Britain actually). And a Polish publish magazine. Also, calling it "user-generated tat" is covered by the Orlinski article which states "Każdy może zrobić własnego "Polandballa" według następującego przepisu: trzeba mieć coś do powiedzenia na temat historii lub polityki międzynarodowej i przetłumaczyć to na prosty komiks, w którym kuleczki symbolizujące różne kraje (co objawia się pomalowaniem ich na kolor flagi narodowej) rozmawiają ze sobą internetowym slangiem." This basically translates to "anyone can do their own "Polandball" according to the following provisions: you must have something to say about history or international politics, and translate it into a simple comic, in which balls, symbolising the different countries (which maninfests itself in the balls being painted in the colours of their national flag), talk to each other in online slang." If anyone can do their own Polandball, this meets "user-generated", much like the lolcat meme. The difference between your ridiculous nappy disasters is that journalists in reliable sources have actually written in detail about this meme. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break for small browsers

(This section for edit by small or mobile-phone browsers.)

• SNOW Delete as attack page. The article is such an obvious insult to people from Poland, as in the phrase "cyberwar between Polish Internet users and the rest of the world" (2nd sentence, revision: rev5358) or "focuses on Polish megalomania" (4th paragraph). Also, sources seem non-WP:RS, but anyone could find sources to write an attack article as "Poland's racial inferiority". Regardless of intent, the article is an attack page, for immediate WP:SNOW deletion. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Negative yes, perhaps even in poor taste. But we are not censored, we delete unsourced attack pages on sight, but this is not unsourced. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

But the attacks are unsourced. Having a ref tag in the article does not grant the article some sort of protective shield against deletion. --RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that editors have been indefinitely banned for using unsourced information in articles? Everything in the article is sourced, and to reliable sources. You would be advised to stop engaging in personal attacks on myself, because accusing other editors of the things you have just done is a bannable offense under WP:DIGWUREN. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Also, the racist Poland-bashing undercurrent is worrying (e.g. "Russians put a halt to all discussion with Poles on which country is most superior [sic]."). Furthermore, the title is barely justified: "Polandball can also include comics on other countries, but by convention these comics are still referred to as Polandball,[1] although the comics can also be referred to as countryballs.[4]" Ref 1 is from 2010, ref 4 is from 2012 it seems. So, surely ref 1 is too old for the fast-changing world of transient memes? Can't the main editors find a reliable source regarding the name of the article from this year? Or do such sources not exist? Oh, and ref 4 is written by someone called "Tomberry". That gives me very little hope in it being a reliable source (though it is honest in mentioning that the meme is "a surefire means to troll" Polish net users).Malick78 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources need to be reliable but they do not need to be current, this is not Wikinews. Memes are by their nature transient, some will come and go without leaving sufficient mark to meet the GNG, but if this has met the GNG then it doesn't matter whether the meme is still running or not - so a reference from 2010 is perfectly OK for wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a racist undercurrent here. As the article says, the meme is used to ridicule certain jingoist attitudes and internet personae, not really Poland.Estlandia (dialogue) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be used to propagate memes. Coverage and promotion are often indistinguishable. It's basically the same problem we have with every garage band that has one or two minor press mentions and references in a few blogs. Such articles are not usually created for genuine encyclopedic reasons, but for promotion. We should cover memes when they have unquestionably become part of Internet culture – without Wikipedia's help. JN466 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - transient internet meme, lasting notability has not been demonstrated. To be fair, unlike many Internet memes, I recognise that this one actually has been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources. But that coverage was only over a brief period of time in 2010, and there's been basically nothing since then (the 2012 article only mentions it very briefly). As such, in my view it hasn't demonstrated the lasting importance that would mean it should be considered notable by our standards. Robofish (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary but even with the references included, I dont see significant coverage here so notability, temporary or otherwise, has not been demonstrated.--RadioFan (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment regarding my delete vote and sources-Contrary to what may seen the sources are not that reliable.
• I believe that we can't base Wiki articles on other Wiki articles or Wikis-this was always my understanding of how Wikipedia works. The article meanwhile is based on Lurkmore.to described as "Russian-language MediaWiki-powered online encyclopedia focused on Internet subcultures, folklore, and memes". This can't be really considered a reliable source. Wikipedia never was based on its own articles or on content on other online user generated portals or media-wikis.
• Point two-the second main source is an article by Zapałowski Radosław from Cooltura magazine. This magazine is very niche, and distributed in UK, it's not a major newspaper, nor is it a scholarly journal. Zapałowski Radosław's credentials are unknown. I searched for this, but he doesn't show up that often and I am unaware if he is a scholar in sociology or social media. What I did find is that he also publishes in Polish magazine "Nie" which is described as "Nie is on the extreme left, not so much in terms of the content of its interventions but in its form. Famous for its satire, hostility toward the church, and vulgar caricatures, the weekly is comparable to the National Lampoon"(The crosses of Auschwitz: nationalism and religion in post-communist Poland, Geneviève Zubrzycki). Indeed the text by Zapałowski contains very strong language and opinions about Poles[13] including "w Londynie Polacy czują się jak w Lublinie, a zachowują się jak w stodole" "Poles in London feel like in Lublin and act like in a barn" "Ze ścieków prasy polonijnej " "From sewage drain of Polish press". The article is a selection of negative stories about Poles in UK. The above suggests a certain bias of the author, that doesn't seem to indicate him being neutral in this issue or suitable for describing memes about Poland in neutral way.
  • At the risk of breaching WP:OTHERSTUFF, many of our articles on subjects, such as Popes of certain time periods, rely on biased sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, which has a pre-Vatican-II Catholic POV. We need to see through the biases in order to come up with a NPOV, and that requires triangulation from multiple sources. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 19:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Third-intentions. Even when the article uses biased sources, they have been very selectively used. All mentions about the fact that the meme primarily tries to show Poland in negative way have been removed-although even the articles used as sources themselves contain this information in several places and even acknowledge that for some the they represent anti-polish sentiment.Attempts to add this information was removed under very dubious rationale, for example let me quote article is also about countryballs, and Polandball may in fact mean other countryballs, not necessarily Poland, so this is undue weight for the lead to fix on Polan and oversimplification( avery strange claim to make about article itself titled Polandball), which left just a cherry picked sentences to claim the Polandball meme deals with "Polish megalomania", thus justifying it.

All the above seems to indicate that this article has been written not with the intent to inform but to prove a point, and with disregard to neutrality towards the subject or to Reliable Sources. Therefore I am keeping my vote for delete. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • OK, you've criticized one Polish source (the language of which is not very neutral but not very strong either), but there are other sources. Also, memes is such a topic that is rarely discussed in 100% neutral and serious way. As for the deleted part, it was simply inappropriate and not correct for the lede, because this article is about Polandball/countryball, and the countryball doesn't deal with Poland alone and pokes fun at national stereotypes related to multiple countries. GreyHood ^Talk 20:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither your description of the author seems problematic - in fact you show that he is an established journalist writing in several notable editions. It is not important what is his attitude towards Poles in UK, the church etc - the subject of this article is Polandball/Countryball, not Poles or Poland. It is important only whether the author is correctly covering the meme itself. GreyHood ^Talk 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that you haven't commented on one Wikimedia online user generated project being used to source Wikipedia? Which as far as I understand is against WP:RS.

As to the rest Also, memes is such a topic that is rarely discussed in 100% neutral and serious way-sorry we are on Wikipedia, not some satirical website of poor quality. Articles here are to be presented in neutral and encyclopaedic way. Since you say that this article is not serious and not neutral, it further supports the view that it should be deleted.

• As for the deleted part, it was simply inappropriate and not correct for the lede, because this article is about Polandball/countryball, and the countryball

So the article is not about Poland but about countries in general? Than why not a different name? In any case, the article now focuses much on showing the meme against Poland as justified and even when using biased sources, carefully avoids mentioning that even them admit to anti-polish and negative aspects of portrayal of Poland in the meme. Again showing that this article from the start was not fulfilling Wiki criteria. in fact you show that he is an established journalist writing in several notable editions As for Cooltura-it's hardly notable or RS. As for NIE-its hardly RS and certainly can't be used without attribution and explanation. Since the author so clearly demonstrates his specific very non-neutral views, we can't use him as neutral source that is objectively describing a meme whose primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland. In any case the meme is hardly notable nor encyclopaedic to be included in Wiki.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I have commented on the usage of the Russian source above in my answer to User:My very best wishes.
  • As for the ways memes are generally discussed, I've just described how they are generally discussed on the Internet. I have not proposed to discuss them in "not serious and not neutral" way on Wikipedia, nor I have stated that this article is "not serious and not neutral".
  • The article is named "Polandball" because the term is slightly more popular than "countryball" and can be used even when there is no any Poland around. Personally, however, I could support the move of the article to "Countryball" title as I consider it more descriptive, but the available sources clearly prefer "Polandball" and google gives more hits to "Polandball" too.
  • The text of the article shows well enough how Polandball is shown in the cartoons. Note that national stereotypes are just national stereotypes, and if Polandball is poked fun at, it does not necessarily mean that Poland is shown in a negative light (remember also that a part of cartoons is actually illustrating some particular Poles at imageboards, such as Wojak).
  • Cooltura has its own article, so it is notable in the Wikipedia sense. Why it should not be RS I don't know and you have not explained. NIE is not used in the article. And all what we care about is whether the author is neutral and knowledgeable in the description of the subject of the article - whether he is non-neutral in other ways is not important.
  • You are incorrect in stating that the meme's "primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland". The meme is popular among Poles too and its purpose is to poke fun at national stereotypes, it is simply a comics style and by now most of the cartoons are about other countries, not Poland. GreyHood ^Talk 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'I have commented on the usage of the Russian source above in my answer to User:My very best wishes'So let me quote you regarding the use of another wiki project to source Wikipedia:It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced.-this actually confirms how non-notable the issue is if sources can't be found. And again- Wikis can't be seriously used as source for other Wikis.

but the available sources clearly prefer "Polandball" and google gives more hits to "Polandball" tooGoogle gives results for thousands of terms and things that aren't on Wiki.

• it does not necessarily mean that Poland is shown in a negative light Sources used in the article, biased as there, state otherwise. Of course, such information is removed, while parts criticising Poland stay.
• Cooltura has its own article, so it is notable in the Wikipedia sense"

Wiki has many articles on many niche publications. Existence of their articles doesn't make them RS, especially when it is a newspaper about events in UK and life of emigrants.ANd especially when they are written by authors with clearly demonstrated bias.

• You are incorrect in stating that the meme's "primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland". Except, once again, sources used in the article stated otherwise. The fact that when a source used stated such thing and was used to inform readers about it, the information was removed, while information justifying the meme stayed, does suggest that the article was not written with NPOV in view.

To sum up:out of the sources used, none, besides one are notable. Only one from Gazeta Wyborcza is notable, and it is a opinion piece written by an author with rather strong views. The use of wikis to source a wiki article can't be accepted, neither the use of authors from niche magazines that have very biased views as objective sources of information. Or the deletion of information that informs about negative role of the meme. But as stated, you have only one source to use in this article. That hardly makes the topic notable in the first place. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources in the article check out. Some commentators here have voiced the opinion, that the meme is offensive. However, since the article has Polish sources, including main Polish newspapers such as Gazeta Wyborcza, it shows the topic is appropriate even for Poles, according to the Polish authors. Also, meme subjects do not require extensive coverage in academic sources - media attention is enough, and the subject has clearly received enough of it. Nanobear (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

media attention is enough There is only one editorial piece in major newspaper and that's it. Hardly "media attention".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Hardly any coverage, and not notable. Machinarium (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. While the number of google hits is not a very strong argument, it might have more relevance for such topics as memes (especially given that we have some RSs and may need additional considerations to establish the notability). The phrase "Poland cannot into space" gives me 113,000 results. More pages contain this phrase as a part of an image, and more hits will be added if we count such things as "Poland can into space" and other derivatives, as well as translations to other languages. The number of 113,000 is already more than the numbers of hits got for many titles in the Category:Internet memes (where the sourcing is often no more extensive than in this article). That's all not mentioning the hits for such terms as "Polandball", "Countryball", "Russiaball" etc. etc. (including other spellings and translations to other languages). GreyHood ^Talk 22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Remembert that Wiki is not a collection of slang words, dictionary, memes etc. Also:there are thousands of words, people, titles that give results in google in thousands but are not covered by Wikipedia.

See:

Wikipedia:NOT#INFO As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Additional guidelines connected to the issue: Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary Usage, slang, and/or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's all good policies, but no point in reminding of them here. Wikipedia already has hundreds and thousands articles about memes and phrases. So these are perfectly encyclopedic topics, of course if we have reliable sources. The number of google hits can serve as an additional argument to show that a subject reported by reliable sources is notable and that we need to have an article on it in order to uphold the informational purpose of the encyclopedia. GreyHood ^Talk 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia already has hundreds and thousands articles about memes and phrases" And thousands upon thousands remain outside Wikipedia. Considering the fact that for this article, we can barely find one opinion piece in RS, this suggests the fate of this article should be the same. The number of google hits can serve as an additional argument As mentioned, you get thousands of phrases, people, words easily googled in thousands but which aren't on Wiki(and for good reasons). that a subject reported by reliable sources Except here we aren't dealing with one. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"So these are perfectly encyclopedic topics, of course if we have reliable sources."

Only the most notable of the notable. As of now, I think we have too many of these articles as it is. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTPAPER and WP:BELONG are relevant as arguments against that view - the inclusion criteria for articles is the WP:GNG which is applied independently to each article. Diego (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The discussion above has convinced me that the above is non-notable with the sources bsing either from non-reliable publications or opinion pieces. If it were genuinely encyclopedic, then some reliable English sources should exist by now.--85.210.25.136 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:NOENG. GreyHood ^Talk 14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Doc talk 04:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTAVOTE. GreyHood ^Talk 14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fellows, let's be reasonable, huh? This is not the time or the place to perform some kind of a half-assed autopsy on a fish... And I'm not going to stand here and see that thing cut open and see that little Kintner boy spill out all over the dock. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice Non sequitur (literary device) --RadioFan (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Polandball, also known collectively as countryballs in another words One, also known collectively as numbers.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This is about interchangeable names of a comic style, not about maths definitions. GreyHood ^Talk 14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If interchangeable so why this name?. OR or POV?Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Umm, if you read the article, you will see why it is called Polandball, even though it can also be called "countryballs". From the article it states "Polandball can also include comics on other countries, but by convention these comics are usually still referred to as Polandball,[1] although they can also be called countryballs.[4]" The first part is verified from the Gazeta Wyborcza article which states "Ten rodzaju humoru nazywany jest "Polandball", nawet gdy Polska w tych historyjkach nie występuje, bo zaczęło się od kpin z Polski i polskiej flagi.", and the countryballs come from KYM which states: "(also known as Countryballs)". The article itself is written by a native English speaker (me), and it is very clearly explained in the article what the article subject is about. Honestly, if one has any doubts as to what the article explains, then take it to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment instead of AfD, because voting to delete something at AfD because one can't understand what is written in plain English is a bit silly in my mind. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep – Notable Internet meme. Like all Internet phenomena it is difficult to find sources in corporate media, but we still need to cover those subjects. The sourcing exceeds the level required for Tamagotchi characters. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The level of sourcing required is determined by WP:N not WP:OTHERSTUFF.--RadioFan (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Section break 2

• Comment I came here because Polandball is an obvious example of a Polish joke, and I was wondering whether to include it on that page. However, if there is only one reliable source mentioning it, then inclusion might be problematic. Furthermore, I feel that "Know your Meme" and "Oh Internet" SHOULD be considered reliable sources, given their apparent diligence in researching memes and telling about their history. Just because users contribute to a source, should that make it unreliable? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 19:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, after having done some research I must agree with you. From description at Knowyourmeme#Website it is clear that Knowyourmeme, while includes some user-generated content, is not similar to Wikipedia because it doesn't allow to edit without account and because administrators has much more say there in determining which material is notable and stays and which is not. It is not like Dramatica and other such sites - currently they have just 1202 memes, which is not much more than the number of memes in the Wikipedia Category:Internet memes (including subcategories), which means that Knowyourmeme has some standards of notability comparable to Wikipedia's standards in effect. From the technical point of view, the Knowyourmeme site is very professional and it has a very good credentials - see Knowyourmeme#Recognition: "among the 50 Best Websites of 2009" (TIME), the best website of 2009 (The Winnipeg Free Press), Streamy Award in 2010 for Best Guest Star in a Web Series, nomination for Best Hosted Web Series. I should agree that Knowyourmeme, as the most professional large collection of memes on the web should be considered reliable source in this area. GreyHood ^Talk 10:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree. You are fitting your hope in getting this article saved to the facts. KnowYourMeme, like many websites of its kind, deals with fads and fashions. The 'justification' for each entry comes from user generated votes, some of which are generated by Facebook statuses at the bottom of each article. The fact is, Polandball is only notable to a very niche audience. It has not permeated the Internet 'at large'. As Wiki cannot rely on one source, not to mention an unreliable one, this article is still clearly questionable and on the basis of argument, should be deleted. That was my original vote and I keep to it. doktorb _words^deeds 10:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Nope, firstly there are 4 Polish sources, and they are all quite reliable in fact - the objections such as "opinion piece" etc. are important to question reliability in the context of more serious and disputable things, but not memes. Basically the sources fail criteria for scholarly sources but are OK otherwise. Secondly, Polandball most certainly permeated Internet at large - it has fans across the globe, a large number of sites and blogs and groups in social networks are devoted to the meme, it entered a number of user-generated encyclopedias - and the phrase "a very niche audience" could be applied to 99% of memes and in fact to 99% of all Wikipedia articles. Thirdly, the actual meme notability is surely determined by the number of people which know it and use it, so the mechanisms of user voting at Knowyourmeme are only adding to establishing the notability. And that's likely why Knowyourmeme has all these good credentials and awards. It really is considered one of the best sources for memes. GreyHood ^Talk 11:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with doktorb here, this meme isn't as well known as its fans here seem to think. It is has its niche, Wikipedia has room for nichey things, but only when there is significant coverage in that niche. This doesn't seem to be the case here. Knowyourmeme is a fine website but it is not the slam dunk of notability being painted in this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Knowyourmeme is one of the best sources of memes available on the web, and it includes Polandball in the collection of 1200 most popular and recognized memes on the web. The number of 1200 isn't really that large and is comparable to the number of items in the Category:Memes. In addition we have 4 Polish sources. Really, for a meme that's enough, and sorry for the type of argument, but it seems that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST with a similar level of sourcing or with less Google hits than Polandball in the Category:Memes. GreyHood ^Talk 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is one of the strangest AFDs I've read through in a long time. We all need to take a step back and ask ourselves, why are we for or against deleting this article? Is it because we are looking to protect the honor of Poland? Russia? Memes? The discussion needs to be squarely around the subjet of the article and the sources that are available, nothing else. RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have asked sevaral times - what the article is about (Polandball, also known collectively as countryballs) - Polandball or countryballs? If the subject isn't defined, it's not an article. How many people will remeber Polandball in five years? Is Borat still a source of knowledge about Kasakhstan? Xx236 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Clearly the answer to at least one your questions is - Yes. - see BBC Middle East News 23 March 2012, Borat anthem stuns Kazakh gold medallist in Kuwait. Perhaps the answer to both is yes.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The subject is well-defined: a comics style known as Polandball, or countryball, or countryballs. You apparently mix things: "Poland" cannot be "countries", but "Polandball" can be "countryballs". GreyHood ^Talk 16:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as an attackpage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is definitely not an attack page, as it accurately describes the meme as written about in independent, reliable sources. It gives history of the meme, explains what the meme is about, gives examples of its usage, and also explains it isn't limited only to "Poland", but other balls, although the meme when discussing other "balls" is still known as Polandball. Saying that this is an attack page, is in effect accusing myself of gross misconduct in the article. If anyone cares to check the sources, they will see that I have taken care to make sure it doesn't attack anyone, but accurately describes what sources say. Polish sources at that! Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• KEEP, Poles can take biting satire like everyone else. Better to err on the side of inclusion than join the side of political censorship. Pultusk (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Main issue is notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OTOH WP:Wikipedia is not censored is a valid argument if the only opposition for the article comes from it making fun of Polish. Diego (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't make fun of the Polish, but rather describes the meme as per the multiple, independent, reliable sources. Also, thank you Pultusk, I noticed you are Polish and can understand that the meme is in effect satirical, yet biting, humour. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Many editors are saying that WP is not knowyourmeme, and seem to be basing this on KYM being used as a reference in the article, which no-one has challenged either on the article, nor on the talk page.

KYM is only used to reference part of this statement (part referenced to KYM marked in bold):

Krautchan.net is a German-language imageboard whose /INT/ board is frequented by English-speaking netizens. The beginning of the Polandball meme is credited to Falco, a Brit on /INT/, who in September 2009 created the meme using MS Paint in an apolitical way to troll Wojak, a Pole on the same board who contributes in broken English, after which Polandball cartoons were enthusiastically drawn by Russians.

The rest of that sentence is references to two reliable sources (both Polish newspapers).

As to knowyourmeme, it is well regarded as tracking and documenting internet memes -- that is it's business after all -- and is often referred to in media when the subject of internet memes arises. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

KYM isn't exactly known for being well researched, at least they seem to have fixed their entry on Spurdo Spärde now. --157.157.160.183 (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

According to other reliable sources KYM is well researched and is notable for tracking memes and writing up on them. But in this case, it is the fact that other reliable sources have independently reported on the subject that makes it notable. KYM is only used to add a couple of facts which weren't stated in the other articles, but which are somewhat needed. I would never have written an article on Argentina is white, because it lacks details, independent coverage by reliable sources; Polandball however does have such coverage. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.