Wikipedia talk:Notability (memes)

Archives

• /Archive1 - Beginning -> April 2006
• /Archive2 - April 2006 - June 2006

While I was sleeping, the proposed guideline changed

I'm not sure I like the new version at all. It's just a copy of WP:WEB. Under this version, would Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten be notable? I'm not sure that anyone would question that this is one of the more notable internet memes ... it certainly needs to fit any standard. I agree with those above who don't like the arbitrary one year old ... but there really needs to be something more than is there now. BigDT 03:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten has been discussed in multiple, non-trivial, reliable, reputable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If it weren't, then we should delete the article, because we are not working on building an encyclopedia full of unreliable, error-riddled trivia. -- Dragonfiend 04:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I realized this morning what I don't like about the new guideline - it needs to be media mentions plus something else, not media mentions alone. Obviously, you are correct that verifiable sources are a prerequisite ... for anything, not just memes. But you need more than just media mentions. Think about, for example, all of the stupid stuff people have tried to sell on e-Bay. For example, there was a guy who wanted to sell his wife's wedding dress and launched into a tirade about her personal failings. It got a handful of media mentions at the time. But nobody would possibly care about it now. Last year, there was a Tennessee fan who put his fanship up for sale after a disappointing season. This article [1] is about a hockey fan who has done the same thing. Without further qualification, this guy would qualify for an article under the new standard. There really needs to be a restriction of some kind. BigDT 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • • Why is longevity an issue? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is too loose. Compare WP:NEO, the standard for neologisms. This requires that the neologism not get an article until there are secondary sources that discuss (instead of just use) the phrase. Can something equivalent be crafted here? Or could we even just point this to WP:NEO, as a neologism is a new meme. GRBerry

I'm not sure that I agree that a neologism is exactly equal to a new meme in every case but I like your observation about the structure of WP:NEO very much. As you say, the requirement that we wait until there are secondary sources that discuss (instead of just use) the meme could be a very simple and effective rule for quickly sorting the verifiable from the unverifiable pages. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that too... but then again this is sort of the standard for everything anyway. Perhaps if the guideline specified that secondary sources must exist for the meme to be notable (on top of verifiable), this would mean something. Mangojuice^talk 11:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Multiple

I've changed the guidelines to notability to say "multiple non-trivial published works", as WP:WEB and numerous other notability guidelines do. Without it this guideline is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and a single news story does not justify coverage in an encyclopaedia. Is there a decent reason that memes should only need one source, or is it a case of relaxing standards because most articles under this category can't meet them otherwise?

To avoid the appearance of WP:POINTing, I should let everyone know that I became aware of this failing after being told about what the guideline used to say by BigDT [2]. Obviously I'm not trying to change the guideline solely so that it doesn't contradict me on a single discussion (it's still in the proposed stage anyway and WP:BRD applies). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy - WP:WEB is no good for Memes. A single reference outside of the web indicates that it's been noticed outside of what people puzzlingly consider the small sphere of the web. I don't support the change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, most articles under this category can't meet them otherwise. I'm going to agree with Jeff here (I usually don't), but the need for "multiple" in WP:WEB has more to do with the fact that for websites or forums, material is often generated to promote them; even a newspaper article can be solicited by a company. With memes, they promote themselves and spread on their own, so we don't "need" the word multiple in the guideline. This is not to say it wouldn't be a good idea. We don't need multiple sources for everything, we only need them when facts are in dispute or we can't trust the independence of sources. One GOOD source is plenty. And I don't think this will have a backsliding effect on WP:WEB more generally, because no one is going to be fooled by someone claiming a website is a meme when it isn't. Mangojuice^talk 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, tht's not 100% true. Icy Hot Stuntaz, I Kiss You, etc, those are websites that spread as memes. Our typical understanding is that memes aren't websites, but there are excpetions and we shouldn't box ourselves out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree that in a case where there's the possibility that self-promotion has led to the one and only source, that we should do better. Numa Numa, for instance, we wouldn't have to worry about it... but if someone claimed that MySpace was a meme, I might agree, but would say it has to meet the WP:WEB requirements anyway. Mangojuice^talk 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the change. Rossami (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the addition of "multiple", barring any other metric being proposed. Other wise we're just saying this is "WP:WEB Lite." - brenneman ^{L} 05:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Articles on internet memes, like all encyclopedia articles, must be based on multiple reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 05:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the change. The requirement at WP:V is that an article cite an independent verifiable source. There is no requirement that there be multiple sources, only that in instances where "an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic". That means if an article topic has a reputable, reliable, third party source, the article can exist. I personally feel WP:WEB should be changed to requiring a single source too. That's the spirit of Wikipedia policy, and I think asking too much is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If the New York Times cover something, does it not warrant an article until something else does? Hiding Talk 08:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The spirit of Wikipedia policy is that this is an encyclopaedia. We do not repeat the day's news stories, we use them to cover those people and events that justify lasting historical record. All such things receive coverage by several sources, usually over a period of time. If they don't, it's because they're not important enough. The Times is right in front of me, and by opening it up I can use the day's stories to verify potential articles on a paedophile who had sex with a 14-year-old girl in a back alley and has been arrested, an Internet insurance scheme against the Second Coming, and a march by the National Front to commemorate 7/7 which is intended to go through an Asian area. And that's just pages 1 and 2. Clearly none of those things are notable enough to justify encyclopaedia articles. The paedophile will go to prison, get early release and die in a dingy halfway house, the insurance scheme is already withdrawn, and the National Front march will probably attract 3 pasty bald loonies and a half-pitbull who will march down one street, get scared and scuttle into a pub. And that's the end of them, and they'll be replaced by equally verifiable yet utterly unimportant stories tomorrow morning.

There are enough important things in the world which we don't have articles on yet that we don't have to scrabble around for reasons to write about our favourite Flash cartoon or blog non-story under the pretense that it's a "meme". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I was with you when you said "The spirit of Wikipedia policy is that this is an encyclopaedia." The rest of it seems to be your opinion of what is notable enough for an encyclopedia to cover. I should imagine a couple of newspapers cover the paedophile attack, so where lies your argument, given it has multiple sources? Maybe instead of arguing about notability, we could get out there and fix the problem you describe, that there are "important things in the world which we don't have articles on yet"? Just a thought. To me, Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are enough to guide me in my creation and writing of articles. It's not my place to determine what's important for our users, and I'm not convinced by your arguments, which seem to imply a point of view about what should be included, and above all, Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view. If articles are well written, informative and meet the three key policies then any other issue should be settled at WP:AFD and not in any inclusion guidelines. I'm not going to tell people what they can and cannot read. As to your notion of "multiple" sources, since that is against the policy at WP:V, perhaps you should suggest such an important change there instead of here? Hiding Talk 20:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Multiple newspaper articles about the same single incident do not generally meet the definition of "multiple non-trivial published works" because in many (most?) cases, each news article is based on an AP wire or other single source and will carry essentially identical content. In other contexts, that phrase has pretty universally been intrepreted as requiring multiple sources that are significantly different from each other. That could mean multiple news articles over time (such as the extended coverage of the Enron trials) but by preference would mean multiple coverages at least some of which are more than news articles.
As for the argument that we should abdicate all responsibility for content selection, I disagree for two reasons. First, I believe that we have an obligation to our readers. We can and must exercise editorial discretion where appropriate. People come here expecting an encyclopedia. That's what they should find. Second, there is the issue of the sustainability of the project. Unlike most wikis, Wikipedia has been successful because we have kept a very firm grip on our core purpose. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not a blog, not a newspaper, not a dictionary, not an anything else. Wikis that lose their sense of purpose tend to fail shortly thereafter. I've been heavily influenced by the writings of Carl Shirkey in this regard. I recommend his article on Social Software and the Politics of Groups if you haven't read it. Rossami (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"In other contexts, that phrase has pretty universally been intrepreted as requiring multiple sources that are significantly different from each other" Then get a consensus and change WP:V. That page is policy and directs that an article topic only need have one independent, verifiable source. As many people do not hesitate to point out in afds, that page is non-negotiable. Surely that should cut both ways. Articles do not require any notability to be demonstrated beyond having a non-trivial, independent, reliable source. Again, everything else you write is merely your opinion of what Wikipedia is, and sadly, this isn't defined anywhere better than at WP:NOT. You write of an obligation to our readers, but then describe practises which determine what our readers desire. Given the nature of Wikipedia, it is quite easy to determine what our readers desire by the fact that they tend to start articles on topics which we don't have and they desire. Such articles only need to fall in line with the three key policies to exist, and the reader's desire has already been demonstrated. You are correct that we are here to write an encyclopedia, we share that common purpose. Where we differ is our beliefs on how much information which is verifiable, of neutral point of view and not constituting original research we should contain. I believe that anything which can be written of without breaching the three key policies has a place in Wikipedia. I believe adhering to those three policies makes such writing encyclopedic. I believe that's the spirit upon which Wikipedia is founded. Hiding Talk 10:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought that WP:V required multiple sources, but I can see how this is not as clear as it could be. There's a lot of statements like "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources," which is different from "An article [requires] a reputable source" vs. "An article [requires] reputable sources." That is, using plural articles require plural sources is somewhat vague as to how many sources each article requires. However, "If an article topic [singular] has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources [plural], Wikipedia should not have an article [singlar] on that topic" seems to say that a singular article needs plural sources. Also, WP:NOR says, "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources [plural] which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article [singular], and to adhere to what those sources [plural] say." There we pretty clearly have a singular article requiring plural reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 15:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, two points: as I already stated, WP:V states that "If an article topic [singular] has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources [plural], Wikipedia should not have an article [singlar] on that topic" This means that if one exists, it does not meet this condition and thus can exist, since one is greater than none. It merely has to have more than none. Second point, [WP:NOR]] says, "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources [plural] which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article [singular], and to adhere to what those sources [plural] say." This says nothing about third party sources, and since primary source can be reliable, this guidance also offers nothing to back up the argument that a singular article requires plural third party reliable sources. I accept that articles require reliable sources, and I accept that one of them must be a third party source, but beyond that I don't see anything in the three key policies requiring plural third party reliable sources. Hiding Talk 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I support multiple, and even think it should be tightened up to "more than two". Multiple is too vague. And, it needs to be clear that the published source is *about* the meme, not that the meme is tangential (as an example, see Wrong Planet and William Freund, although this example applies to websites -- Wrong planet only claims notability because they were part of Freund's coverage, and I'm not sure that should be legit. The coverage should be about Wrong Planet, not about Freund, but this entry can claim notability via Freund, so that situation should be addressed.) Sandy 02:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All memes are inherently non-notable

I feel that most all internet memes are inherently non-notable, as they exist for a couple weeks through people's inboxes and forwards, and then vanish again. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So then why are Leeroy Jenkins and Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten still around after 2-3 or more years? Any notable meme is one that has become a part of internet culture, and thus will not disappear in a week. Dark Shikari 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

YTMNDs

What about YTMNDs that remain in the spotlight for a while? At what point do we declare the YTMND notable enough to be either a new article, or embedded in a current article? --Targetter 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, when an independent, reliable source discusses it, at the minimum. Better if there are two good sources. In other words, pretty much never. Mangojuice^talk 05:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reject

The discussion here has effectively gone stale and has produced not much except a rather inadequate solution in search of a problem. The guideline itself has not been edited since I edited it five weeks ago, and the sole criterion is that the 'meme' be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. So it states nothing more than what is a) blindingly obvious and b) already in WP:WEB, WP:BIO and numerous other guidelines. As this page doesn't really fill any gaps I suggest we stick a {{rejected}} tag on it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm prone to agree with you. As necessary as this is, it's not going anywhere until things change in other areas, and perhaps it'll be worth revisiting when things change at WP:RS. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. I never thought this did much to clarify anything beyond WP:V. I changed the tag to a rejected just now. Mangojuice^talk 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it from {{IncGuide}} - it needs to be moved to "Old discussions" on {{Cent}} at some point as well, but perhaps we should leave it for a week just in case anyone objects to rejecting. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but redundant

I'm not surprised that this never gained consensus - there's no reason for this page to exist as the criteria set out are basically the same as in WP:WEB and WP:N generally.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

9+10=21

Is the old 9+10=21 meme notable to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia? Like say a redirect? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?. (See the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability.) Even it it does not meet the general notability guideline, the meme may be acceptable within an article if what is being said about the meme is verifiable from reliable sources. BTW, redirects are supposed to link to an article (or section of an article) that discusses, or places in context, the subject of the redirect. If you know of reliable sources discussing the meme, then you can add the information to an appropriate article in Wikipedia. But, please, provide enough information about the sources for other editors to find and evaluate those sources. Donald Albury 14:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ALright, I will look into it. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)