Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34 of the Internet

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. Consensus is that this topic is not notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 34 of the Internet[edit]

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

Only discussed trivially in the sources. No non trivial sources found. We've been around this block countless times. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I gave my reasons on the first AfD about a year ago. Unsurprisingly, Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar show no new coverage by reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This iteration of the article does have slightly more references than the one that I AfD'ed last May, but they are all very passing mentions and I still see no indication of notability. If this is deleted again, it should probably be salted as well. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting side note...even though deleted, the old version of this article (which was deleted) is now a redirect that actually has a decent number of page views, suggesting that it might still be a somewhat likely search term. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of these stupid memes get insanely popular while still flying under the radar. Try to find just one source for "it's over nine thousand!" I dare you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this has nothing to do with WP's deletion policy, but 663 page views in January is hardly an impressive statistic. For example, during that period, Internet meme has been viewed 104,180 times. The page is non-notable even by Wikipedia's traffic reports. — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this count as a source for "over 9000!" ? ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying pageviews make it notable, I was just musing about what to do with that redirect. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. There is a soon-to-be-published Rule 34 (novel) from Charles Stross. Perhaps we could make a disambig page, and list there the definition we're discussing here, along with the other 2 (or more) meanings. Just a short line that directs to [List of Internet phenomena], like:
"Rule 34, an internet meme that states "If it exists, there is porn of it somewhere on the Internet.""

Or something similar.

Also: The mention of this definition at 34 (number) seems to have disappeared.

Also: I've added an external link to the Know Your Meme page[1], which has a few more potential leads (that I have no time to follow up on currently). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "The page is non-notable even by Wikipedia's traffic reports." Since when did Wikipedia traffic statistics become a criterion of notability? Gordon Coates, another article I have worked on recently, had an average of barely 10 page views per day, and the guy's a former Prime Minister of New Zealand with a good article. Please stick to real arguments, not something like page rank. Ingolfson (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding the comment that it should be "salted". You are saying that this CANNOT ever be notable? And/or that having to delete the odd article popping up again is in iitself harming Wikipedia? It seems so, because in addition to deleting the artice, you are proposing a lock mechanism which will strongly reduce the likelihood of something ever being created here that passes your muster. If this was such a clear cut case, then my variant would be applicable for speedy too. Ingolfson (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a well-enough known internet meme to have an article on an Encyclopedia that is not paper. I see no reason to delete - but I suspect that this article is suffering from having been deleted before, and is therefore now having even higher hurdles applied to it. Ingolfson (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Wikipedia is not paper has nothing to do with the fact that the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's shocking that this rule hasn't been picked up by the media. Do no journalists own computers, FFS? It almost makes me want to become a reporter just to published discussions of internet memes. Maybe we should soft-redirect to Encyclopedia Dramatica or Knowyourmeme like we do with Wiktionary?

Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedia article for Rule 34.
You may want to read Encyclopedia Dramatica or Knowyourmeme's entry on "Rule 34" instead.

Fences&Windows 15:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Encyclopedia Dramatic is not a Wikimedia project and has some pretty horrible stuff, I would say having a soft redirect there is probably not a good idea. Plus it would raise a disturbing precedent, which people might abuse to soft redirect inappropriate topics to pages on projects (such as Knol) that have different inclusion standards than we do. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage by WP:reliable sources. Rule 34 belongs in the Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary Wouldn't it be far more sensible to simply redirect(or delete and then create a redirect) this to, say, Internet Meme or even start a List of Internet Memes ? If deleted and not protected from re-creation, this WILL be recreated later, and then we'll be right back here again. EugeneKay (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary like an expanded dictionary entry. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete previously deleted numerous times, speedily and after AFD, even salted under a differnent name. RadioFan (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well-known meme that seems to be sticking around, and has occasionally been mentioned on non-internet sources (novels, TV shows, etc). See no logical case whatsoever for deletion. CaptainVlad —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC). — CaptainVlad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:DEL#REASON. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed, as well as articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline are subject to deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known meme. Tangurena (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? — Rankiri (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hugely well known internet meme. Artw (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an encyclopedia, people come here to look stuff up they don't know. looking for Rule 34 should at least tell them what it means. Whether it needs its own article might be debatable though. 93.205.246.85 (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC) — 93.205.246.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. I see no reason whatsoever why we should relax the notability criteria for this. Why did you do it (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that this is even a well-known concept, and it certainly hasn't been covered in reliable sources in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia is suspect. f o x (formerly garden) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I !voted keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34 (Internet meme) but as it was deleted then and there isn't really any possibility for the content of the article to change I don't see why the arguments for deletion should change. My own argument in the previous AfD was based on incorrect assumptions I'd made that there was an actual official list of 100 Rules of the Internet which long pre-dated /b/, and I promised to try to verify that and rewrite the article to be about the list. Further research has shown that I was wrong, and so I don't stand by even my previous keep !vote and think that this should be deleted, and urge that further re-creations of this article (this is at least the third, possibly fourth attempt as previous titles have been salted) should be speedily deleted. If someone wants to work on it in userspace, that's fine, but there's really little chance of the article being able to be notable unless the guidelines change. —Soap— 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking coverage in reliable sources. I also strongly object to crosslinking to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Their article on this subject is about the furthest thing possible from encyclopedic. Them From Space 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also impossible because ED is blacklisted. Try linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica in an article and you'll get a "Spam filter notice" saying that there's no way to save the edit. (Though an admin could add it, my guess is that it won't survive.) —Soap— 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyone who argues that this is a commonly recognized meme simply needs to provide reliable sources indicating so. none provided, ergo no article. May i remind people that not all 7 billion human beings look to 4chan as a source of culture.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and probably never will be. Robofish (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I Google it originally gets 719,000 results. Then when I click the last page of results, page 11, it only shows 509 results. Doesn't sound like its that well known. Wiki-answers has a bit about it, surprisingly enough. [2] Just searching for "Rule 34" in Google, returns [3] 981 results. Is it called something else? If its so well known, why isn't it used more? Dream Focus 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important Internet meme, and very likely to be something people would like to look up without having to go to ED or similar. JZ (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources for WP:N purposes. HomepageDAILY has already been rejected, see WP:RS/N. Pcap ping 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am very saddened to say this because I know how much of "A Big Deal" rule 34 is, but fact of the matter is the page is irreparably in need of attention. It is entirely composed of unreliable sources and I doubt that it is likely that we will be able to find such reliable sources. What's worse is that there are claims in the article that use these unreliable sources and create completely new claims out of them, such as the claim "The meme is believed to have orginated on the 4chan imageboard." In fact, the source says that nowhere at all, it merely says "Humanity wants porn, so as image board website 4chan noted with Rule #34- if it exists there is porn of it." This doesn't say that it was created at 4chan, only that it was noted there. It's simple but severe problems like these that put this article beyond hope for repair right now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What many !voters are misunderstanding here is that the discussion is about this article not about the topic. Is there anything in the current article that is worth saving? This isn't strictly a discussion about whether or not the topic could have an article written that meets notabilty guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was referenced from XKCD, which is [4]. XKCD itself is notable, but I'm not sure if this is a reference worth considering. Resistor (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the nominator and Rjanag are right: the subject is not notable. Dr Aaij (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2010 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.