Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ha ha guy

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I note that nearly all the votes to keep outright come from anons. I also not that there were 6 redirect votes, and while I don't deem that as enough for a VfD decision, I dnon't think anyone would mind if someone were to create the redirect after this is deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 01:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha guy

Non notable vanity Francs2000 | Talk 23:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note the sister article HA! HA! guy is also up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HA! HA! guy

Delete for a good laugh. — RJH 23:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hetemeel.com --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anybody want to delete this entry? (Unsigned comment by 68.3.232.189 (talk · contribs))
- Because Wikipedia is not a way of aggrandizing otherwise non-notable individuals. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a random thing that happened at Fark. Dcarrano 00:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Kept because it's funny. — nightrose 00:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Unsigned, second edit by User:66.188.16.20.[1]
Delete. Message board vanity is really the most pathetic form. Who the hell cares about this crap. Postdlf 00:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Let's figure out who this guy was, or what this image was first associated with. The page should also note that hetemeel.com is the reason for its huge popularity due to the ease of dynamic imaging. -That guy, July 17th, 2005 (Unsigned comment by 67.172.124.173 (talk · contribs))
Delete This would be great for a Fark Wiki, if anyone were to be interested in running such a thing. A detailed listing of every cliche does not belong in Wikipedia, and given that this is very new, only the proven cliches should be mentioned in the Fark entry. Bersl2

Redirect Redirect to Fark.com MicroFeet 00:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep it" Because it has the potential to be a serious article. Well...as serious as something related to fark.com can be, at least. But really, have you seen some of the crap contained in Wikipedia? You're going to delete the Ha, Ha! Guy and keep all those other just-as-lame-and-deletion-possible items? Wtf? Just keep the article, police/edit it for about a week, maybe the next two to four days. It'll be fine. Look, if you're going to delete the damn thing, and I don't think you should, at least list it with fark.com somehow. Maybe add a list of the cliches, if there isn't one already. It deserves to be kept because it's funny and because the admins have a bug up their butt at the moment about it. That's really the only reason why you're getting so much traffic on it in the first place. I can assure you that the discussion page does NOT reflect the average farker. The average farker's MENTALITY, but not the average farker. There are those of us who post to fark.com who know how badly it sucks, know how out-of-control and cough-syrup happy the adminstrators and moderators are, and yet simply don't care. And why is that? Because every once in awhile, something comes along that makes us laugh, and we end up forgetting how badly the site needs a rework and how much it needs to have new admins and mods put on the site. The "Ha, Ha!" guy is one of those things that makes us forget. And when we post to fark.com, we like to forget. Trust us. Wait...what was I saying? --68.158.111.148 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject seems non-notable non-encyclopedic, For a supposedly online phenomena... a Google search for "Ha Ha Guy" yields a paltry 207 hits, limiting the search to site:fark.com reduces this number to two in minor forum postings, and a news search produces no results. Whether it could develop into a serious article or not is not the issue IMO, it is the importance, significance, and widespread recognition of the subject of the article, which just appear to not exist. --Mysidia 01:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forum-cruft. --Calton | Talk 02:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. It's an Internet_phenomenon. ArcTheLad 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Keep HA! HA! guy. ArcTheLad 17:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep it~~ The argument for the deletion of this entry seems to center on the relative insignificance of the entry. But consider this - I actually went on Wikipedia to investigate this "cliché", looking for some history or background, and was genuinely interested in what the article had to say. Isn't this what Wikipedia was meant for? I imagine that there are others like me that would be out of luck searching for the article if it were deleted. In terms of significance, I maintain that you must put the article in perspective. There are stubs for geographical locations in Wikipedia that have received far less visits or interest, yet no one disputes their validity of being included in Wikipedia. I will hazard a guess that this cliché will appear time and time again (now that it has been born as a meme). Removing the article therefore would be a disservice to the community at large. --Digizen 02:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to HA! HA! guy. --Digizen 02:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have articles for fark and slashdot, surely this is jsut as harmless. (Unsigned comment by 70.64.30.170 (talk · contribs))
Keep - Keep it because its funny and informative. You can't tell me there is nothing less significant than this on Wikipedia. Just because some people think they are so above anything related to internet forums doesn't mean this should get deleted.
- Unsigned comment by 144.118.203.70.[2]

KEEP IT

- Unsigned...comment by 64.36.75.146.[3]
Delete some random thing that happened on some internet forum. Utterly unencyclopedic. Also, what Postdlf said. CDC (talk)
Speedy Delete This can be placed in the respective sites FAQ's, not suitable for Wikipedia.User:BurningTheGround
Redirect/Keep I recommend getting rid of this article since the HA! HA! guy is a more correct than this article's label of Ha ha guy without the exclamation marks and less consistent capitalization. --Ben Houston 07:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect/Keep I was wondering what the story was behind the Ha Ha Guy. I came to Wikipedia and found the knowledge I sought.--Daveswagon 09:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:VAIN. R adiant _>|< 11:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to HA! HA! guy. --NormanEinstein 14:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect/Keep. Make sure to keep HA! HA! guy. Rhobite 16:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, ne, vain. And burn all sockpuppets and slice and dice all meatpuppets, slowly. -Splash 01:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HA! HA! guy. --Atario 05:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 228 Google hits -- no matter how far behind Google may be, that is awful for an "internet phenomenon." Xoloz 04:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HA! HA! guy

Comment -- More like a question, someone has started a new article entitled HA! HA! guy which is supposed to be more encyclopedic. Is this merely a sad attempt to evade the Vfd, or is does the new atricle merit keeping? I am tending toward the former, a vanity page by a new name is still vanity, and the fundamental question is still whether Ha Ha Guy should have its own article on Wikipedia, although it would be ashame to totally lose this original research.. thoughts? --Mysidia 13:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It -- Although the article is in need of a little work. Specifically, the origins of the picture should be at the begining and perhaps a seperate entry should then be created for the "pop phenomenon" it caused on several forums accross the net. The whole concept of clichè images that appear on web forums is very interesting and should researched and documented further. mikepickens
- As this is your first and only edit to date, Mikepickens (talk · contribs), it may not get counted by the closing admin. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This reply fallaciously attacks Mikepickens' circumstances instead of his argument. ArcTheLad 22:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually no, it's quite within vfd guidelines to point this out for the information of the closing admin. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - This reply ignores my point, which concerns (il)logic. ArcTheLad 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        He is pointing out the circumstances, votes by users with very few edits may sometimes be discounted, it is not a question of philosophy or logic, because the comment is not an argument against his point, only a note that may later call into question the value of the vote. --Mysidia 23:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HA! HA! guy, prefer to give it a chance to become encyclopedic. WP is not a paper encylclopedia. Flawiki 20:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are some Internet memes that are noteworthy enough to keep, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 11:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
redirect both to Internet meme (and add a short reference to it there). seeing the other 'memes' listed there, keep (sigh) and list on Internet memes. dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. --GaidinBDJ 18:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some internet memes are noteworthy, this isn't. Garrett^Talk 06:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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