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. overall consensus was to delete and the few keeps reasoning didn't hold up compared to the other reasoning given Nja²⁴⁷ 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Rule 34 (Internet meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about an xkcd webcomic joke with no other references. Claimed that it's an internet meme, but the only references are to xkcd (and wetriffs.com, a website created by xkcd's author). From my google search, I found no relevant news results, and the only web results are other user-generated sites like encyclopedia dramatica (encyclopediadramatica.com/Rules_Of_The_Internet), [wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_rule_34 WikiAnswers], and Urban Dictionary. Given that the original "rule 34" xkcd comic was posted in August 2007, there's been plenty of time for people to go create UD entries/etc. based on that comic, so none of them are evidence of real notability. And I should also mention that another xkcd-inspired article, Neutrality Schmeutrality, was deleted by overwhelming consensus. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- This isn't a keep or a delete vote, but I just wanted to ask- How long have you been on the internet and you haven't heard of Rule 34? Seriously. This isn't something XKCD came up with off the top of their head, its been around for YEARS. Whether that translates to real world notability, I don't know, but I just wanted to point that out. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt Rule 34 was speedy-deleted several times with the exact same content until it was finally overwritten to be about an unrelated Rule 34 which is notable. The meme is most certainly not notable in that there is no non-trivial coverage of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No encyclopedic value. Falls under WP:NOTDIC, possibly even WP:MADEUP. — Rankiri (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible redirect to xkcd. As much as I'm a fan of xkcd, I've said many times before that we simply can't have articles about in-jokes from the series or individual cartoons. Ultimately, the WP:NOTDIC and WP:MADEUP stated above. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No redirect, due to Soap's comment below. I had a feeling that it wasn't xkcd-y, but made the foolhardy mistake of trusting the article in question. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Only potential source I can find. And just fyi, potentially the original image, via this thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actually, it's more than just XKCD and it didn't even originate there. It actually started at 4chan and/or Uncyclopedia. But that doesn't mean its notable whatsoever. This is a WP:DICDEF with little information. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a spiritual violation of G4 (seeing as Rule 34 was salted for years, before being made into a completely different article) Sceptre ^(talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G4) as recreation of deleted material. Created under a different title to shirk the deletion process. Nice try. MuZemike 23:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is obviously going to get deleted but I just want to set people straight that Rule 34 has nothing whatsoever to do with xkcd and that while I don't think this will ever get beyond the status of a dictionary definition, and probably can't be saved, it bothers me to see so many incorrect deletion rationales from so many people. I guess I can add that I would be against redirecting to xkcd for that reason; it has no relation to the webcomic other than that xkcd mentioned it briefly in one comic. Note I changed my vote from 'comment' to 'keep'; I dont know how you can decide if a meme is notable or not, but please consider my recent edits to the article. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Sceptre and MuZemike. While I sympathize with Soap's point of view, fact of the matter is this is a recreation of a salted article. DRV is the place to take arguments that the article should be remade. JuJube (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to wiktionary' 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMO this is a well known 'Rule' of the internet, references at Urban Dictionary and its own domain. It is also used as a regular game on BoingBoing. There should also be some form of link from Rule 34. People who do not know of this rule will turn to Wikipedia to find out what it means. sijarvis (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the nomination statement. Having a reference at Urban Dictionary is meaningless; Urban Dictionary is user-generated and full of all kinds of junk and personal jokes. As for rule34.com, that's not "its own domain", it's a porn site. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I didn't get beyond the front page of rule34.com, however it does state the 'rule' there. Also the bulk of Google hits refer to the meme rule rather than the one described at Rule 34, even the meme Wikipedia page has a higher Google rank than Rule 34. I'm realising as I write this that it's not the best argument for keeping it although I feel more that there is no reason not to. Surely the amount of mentions on even user generated sites mean that it is noteworthy enough to feature. I'll admit I've not been very familiar with all the Wikipedia policies for the last few years, but I don't see why this should be scrapped. sijarvis (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Until there are some references beyond ED and UrbanDictionary, I wouldn't consider this notable. As of right now it's just an in-joke. Perhaps that may change... after all, other internet memes such as "Rickrolling" had articles which were deleted, only to be recreated once they became more notable. At this point "Rule 34" isn't quite there yet. Prezboy1 talk 14:05, 7 June 2009 (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.