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 keep. Krimpet (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lolcat[edit]

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)).

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

pick a reason, including but not limited to: stupid, non-notable, vanity crap Wedge 00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete makes no sense at all --Lemonflash 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally unsourced original research. WODUP 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and furthermore... The article is unsourced and unverifiable in that no reliable sources exist that can be cited. Unverifiable, the article does not comply with Wikipedia's content and style policies. WODUP 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article now cites a blogging expert and a linguist as its sources; they appear to be reliable sources. The article no longer contains unsourced information that is likely to be challenged. :) WODUP 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uh, yeah, no. 1ne 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it can be Delete time now pleez? Cat macros aren't that notable compared to other macros, and certainly not notable enough to have their own article. No independent non-trivial coverage of this. --Charlene 01:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per originl resurches and teh non-notabel part :) the_undertow ^talk 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a general description of a general meme generally thought to be humorous. Not anything specific, like references. I have copied some of these pictures. I also have copied a picture of a car in mid-air hanging from telephone lines. A subset of cute/interesting pictures doesn't make an article.   Since I can't make them happy, here's a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head (and references in its article). Shenme 04:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten. is a topic, so should this be. This is a legitimate, as well as popular Meme (roflcat.com). --ProteinTotal 04:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may not be a convincing argument. Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten isn't sourced either. WODUP 06:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this was an argument about how creditable/noteworthy the topic is. I am simply saying that if this other meme is popular, and has a Wikipedia page, so should this popular meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProteinTotal (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 April 2007
    • The very first sentence in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS starts The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist... WODUP 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure original research. Sr13 (T|C) 07:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't believe we're even having this discussion. (Then again, I can't believe Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten survived an AfD.) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an Internet mirror. — ciphergoth 12:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to image macros. This is also more likely to keep it from being recreated unless and until there's actually something with third party references to say about it - David Gerard 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I really really like these, in fact in my opinions they're one of the very few internet-meme things that ever rise to being truly and genuinely funny. But a Wikipedia article they ain't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, possibly a speedy under G4. This was previously here as Cat Bongz, and that, too, got deleted back in December. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a legitimate internet fad, albeit the article needs to be cleaned up. --WRE451 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Can't get on a forum without seeing these annoying things. They seem to be everywhere! Article does need some cleanup and some sources, though. --Alabama Man 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Seems noteworthy to me (as if not, every other Internet meme would have to be deleted), and the page is being actively developed at the moment. Give'em a break. --Mike 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with cleanup. Has been the subject of a [Open Source Radio show on anthropomorphism] . -- T1mmyb 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I actively searched for general information on this topic and finally found it here. I'm sure I'm not alone. Keep, or delete every other internet meme. Hell, delete every real life fad and trend that someone, somewhere, thinks is trivial or stupid. Phronk 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lolcatz are a meme, a part of Internet history now -- teddlesruss (at gmail)
• Delete as unsourced Original Research if nothing else. Oh, heck, I may as well say it: IM IN UR AFD DELETIN UR R-TICKLZ! Anville 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to List of Internet Phenomena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena worth a mention in that article, it's a HUGE fad, deleting record of altogether would be ridiculous, but I agree, it's a subject a bit trivial to have it's own article. --137.207.238.106 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Redirect - I tend to agree with the last comment; this should probably be merged into the List of internet phenomena article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possible merge: It's legit, and additional secondary references [1] are available. Yes, this links to a weblog, but it's a scholarly one -- not the same as a media outlet, thus not definitive according to WP:V, but still informative. There seems to be enough for this to exist, even if only part of the list of internet phenomena. Alba 02:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm in ur Wikipedia, makin claims of WP:NOT#PAPER. --70.48.68.77 02:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Im_in_ur_base_killin_ur_d00dz, Wikipedia is the suxxorz. --70.48.68.77 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's funny, it's everywhere!. And if people can find info about it here, where can they find it? betsythedevine 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep With sources this is a legitimate article, on a legitimate web meme. --Lastdoor 07:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article needs work on all levels, but this is a widespread phenomenon, should be documented Danja 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per David Gerard. Should be deleted, but may well be recreated, so let's compromise on redirecting. Batmanand | Talk 11:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Redirect - lolcats is an established internet meme. (Suggestion of redirect only to have the page at /wiki/lolcats - plural) Isofarro 13:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lolcats is well known online, defiantly established. BinaryCleric 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I have no idea why we are going through this. lolcats are extremely popular (and annoying)! I think this comes down to a simple case of people either getting it or not. Those that get the meme, know about its popularity, and see no reason to delete it. Those that don't get the meme, think it is childish and obscure and should be removed. To those people that don't get lolcats: I'm sorry but this is popular and a legitimate topic. Of course, the article could use a little clean up and some sources, but once there I think this will be a fine article. --Hightentcat 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on strong keep, but add that some users familiar with the meme don't see the need for the article, while users like me who aren't find it helpful for this sort of thing to be documented.Mark Foskey 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to image macros - I agree with David Gerard. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not noteworthy & original research Kingsley2.com 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Redirect - to Cat Macros. If you can have O RLY? as an article, you can certainly have Cat Macros as it's own article. SaxofoneDL 02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not noteworthy in really any regard. JeffreyAtW 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With Extreme Prejudice The page desperately needs improvement of course. It's a work in progress and should not be deleted outright. It just needs people well-versed in the topic at hand to cite sources and expand upon what's already there. -- ZachsMind 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable Internet meme; has been linked by Boing Boing[2], Gawker[3] and Metafilter[4]. The post by Anil Dash, already linked at the article, can serve as one source for the article, I think. There are possibly other reliable sources out there I haven't found yet. schi ^talk 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of internet phenomena, unless I can has reliable sources?. —ptk✰fgs 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this notable meme which is a piece of internet history that should not be so easily forgotten. The article's deficiencies can be remedied. Nohat 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Keep* - lolcat is a great meme, and one which has spread far and wide outside of the scope of the normal cliquey corners of the internets. Even my mum likes lolcat (although she does occasionally ask me to explain them). But clean it up, source it up, etc.londoninflames —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 25 April 2007
• Keep and improve article. Sources can be found, I think. ManekiNeko | Talk 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Language Log has referenced this article. *Dan T.* 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep ...but tighten up and edit substantially. I just came here from a LanguageLog article referring to the lolcat snowclone; without the reference I would have been mystified by the expression. The fact that a significant academic site felt it appropriate to link here (and not frivolously) shows there is a need for the page, which should be sufficient grounds for keeping it in some form. (OutEast) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.85.230.200 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep this is just a newly found article, with the lolcats being a major internet topic nowadays, an article like this is necessary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkatticus (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• keep broad internet topic that deserves attention. Artw 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable internet phenomenon - ∅ (∅), 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This topic is not. WODUP 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep: An encyclopædia is an appropriate place to permanently document shifts in dialect. – 70.51.145.220 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (joeclark, which signature Wikipedia refuses to recognize after three attempts)[reply]
• Keep -- I found it useful and informative. Sure, it wouldn't go in Britannica, but that's okay. 70.108.251.128 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but the fact that you found it useful doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. WODUP 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The article may not currently have references, but I was just referred to it from Language Log, a respected linguistics blogroll. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.249.103.247 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Incredibly Strong Keep. Hey, if "All Your Bases Are Belong to Us" has a longer entry than half of the public figures on Wikipedia, then damn straight this should be kept. This is a very popular viral meme, and it hasn't even come CLOSE to its full impact on mainstream media yet. Yes, it needs a substantial overhaul - it really needs to be rewritten in a much more encylopedic manner, and with more verifiable information. But last I checked, we flag those articles accordingly - we don't delete them. EDITED TO ADD: Yes, I understand the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS guideline. There is notability beyond the "other crap" POV. NickBurns 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasons for deletion include when all attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed. I have looked; I'm sure that others have, too. We haven't found any reliable sources yet. When and if there are reliable sources to cite, we can keep or create the article. WODUP 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WODUP, I appreciate your laser-like focus and passion on the subject, but unless I have missed something, we're to have one vote - and therefore, one OPINION - on this page per Wikipedian, correct? You have made a NUMBER of comments, and it appears anyone who disagrees with you somehow needs a stamp of disapproval from you. You have well made your point - please stop slamming it home with a sledgehammer. Best regards. NickBurns 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but you (or I) may have missed something. I thought this was a discussion, not a vote. I'm merely replying to comments here, discussing the merits of some of these arguments. I will, however, try to tone it down a tad so it doesn't look like I'm a deletion-hungry madman. I do appreciate your concern and hope that I have adequately addressed it. WODUP 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WODUP - You're right - this is labeled as a discussion and not a vote. My apologies for being wrong on that. I don't want to crap on anyone's dissenting opinion, but to me, it did come across as being repetitive. I appreciate your contribution(s) to the debate, though. I know we're just trying to make the best decisions. NickBurns 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reliable-sources line doesn't really work very well when dealing with Internet memes. The sources are right there in front of you, and I'm not sure that either NOR or no sources are really all that relevant when looking at Internet memes - that's the nature of the beast. It's as if the bar is set higher somehow for Internet-originated articles, and that smacks of snobbishness to me. --Mike 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reliable-sources line doesn't really work very well when dealing with Internet memes. The sources are right there in front of you, and I'm not sure that either NOR or no sources are really all that relevant when looking at Internet memes - that's the nature of the beast. It's as if the bar is set higher somehow for Internet-originated articles, and that smacks of snobbishness to me. --Mike 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm surprised this is being considered. I've encountered this term a few times lately, and the article provided useful context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.177.6 (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Super-Duper extreme mega Keep What the hell? Wikipedia is organic, it changes as the world around it changes, everybody knows about lolcats, they are highly notable, and this would be one of the first places many people would go to find out about them. Anyone who spends a fair amount of time on the internet would know about lolcats, it may be difficult to fit this in under Wikipedia's criteria, but damnit people USE COMMON SENSE. We should be regarding that far above this multitude of helpful, but sometimes inapplicable, critera. Is anyone seriously calling this 'not notable enough'? If this article gets deleted, it will be the last straw, I will leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be keeping up-to-date with what is happening in the world, but the nay-sayers want this thing deleted because it is hard to find a few references? *sigh* I'm not going to say anymore, it's depressing what Wikipedia is turning into.Darkcraft 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup needed, of course - this seems to be a significant enough phenomenon to warrant an encyclopedic entry, as much as All Your Base. Puddleglum 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup and citations needed. This is a broad-based Internet phenomenon at least as significant as "All Your Base", with enough visibility to have attracted MSM coverage. Ccreitz 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitenely keep, Don't see why this is not a legitimate article: (1) it is not original research, because it describes an internet phenomenon that is referred to in a number of trustworty sites (at least sites that I would trust); (2) it is not nonsense, spam or anything else in that line for the same reason: people use the term to refer to cute kitty pics with stupid texts; (3) there's no trademark infringement (is there?); (4) There are sources referring to lolcats (I also got to lolcats from a LanguageLog link, which is connected to UPenn and refers to another article), so I'd say verifiability is not a problem here; (5) You (yes, you below, don't look so surprised) might think the whole lolcat-thing is silly or stupid, but that's no reason to ban it from an encyclopedia, as long as it really exists or existed. I personally find George W. silly, but that didn't stop him from getting a Wikipedia page. -- I agree with a lot of people below that the article could use some editing, and some checking of facts. -- (Rickus, 04:30, 27 April 2007)
• Keep. "About" 77k ghits. Referenced in reliable sources here and (less clearly) here. Yes, these are blogs, but they are blogs written by subject matter experts - the former by Mark Liberman, who is a published professional researcher in linguistics, the latter by Anil Dash who is widely acknowledged as an expert on Internet culture. The former is certainly a reliable source by the definition at WP:V, the latter is a little less certain, but I contend is. JulesH 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've removed the original research from the article, which should alleviate some of the concerns expressed above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I have already linked to this page in order to define and explain a term on my blog, which seems to me to be one of the main uses of Wikipedia in the real world. It describes and defines a common internet practice as well as documenting an ongoing meme and developing subculture (as there are now community sites growing rapidly around the sharing of modified/captioned cat photos). As a description of an existing cultural phenomenon, it is at least as noteworthy as dozens of articles describing individual Pokemon.Lizard sf 14:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete? No Wai! Chronic The Wedgehog 17:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I also found this entry linked by a legitimate academic blog (languagelog). I agree that the entry needs improvement, but this is a legitimate internet meme which is only gaining prevalence, the 'lolcat' term is the most common expression for it, and it is a subject which has garnered legitimate academic interest (cf languagelog posts). Cicatrix 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I ran across the Language Log post a few days ago, but it was the only thing available that was close to being a reliable source. The Anil Dash article is still not terribly compelling, but is good enough to (along with the other one) justify a VERY SHORT article on this topic. —ptk✰fgs 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. Since this has reputable citations, keeping it is the correct action, despite the anti-meme bias of many wikipedians. People will be looking the term up years from now, so it should have an entry. Also, the article should be as long as the available information allows. I hope no one would trim legitimate information of out the article just to make as short as they felt appropriate.68.11.51.159 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, original research, etc. Cmadler 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fad or not, they are there and as an encyclopedia, wiki should have an article or summary about the "lolcats". Besides, it's not like not having an article won't make it go away. C$ 00:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Even memes and trends that are long over get to have wikipedia articles. And this is just the kind of slightly obscure internet thing that normal people look up on wikipedia when they don't get what it is. Add that to the fact that so many of wikipedia's users are the net-savvy kind, this should be an even more important article to keep....Also I just fixed it up so it's prettier. :)Superjanna 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Keep. Precedent says delete, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im in ur base killin ur d00dz) but I'm not sure I like that precedent (Inclusionist me). My best keep rational is that, well, I just Wikipedia'd Lolcat to find out what the hell it was. The Anil Dash ref is...kind of good? Better? Listen, internet evolution is a tricky one, but I vote we err on the side of having an article, rather than not. --mordicai. 03:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just ref'ed in the Mark Liberman stuff; with two at least somewhat notable blogs as ref, I think I'm going to upgrade my weak keep to a "keep." --mordicai. 14:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but not without reservation. It's been mentioned a couple of times I think, but language log did a post on the syntax of lolcats a few days ago. In that respect I think the article should be substantially changed to reflect their point (and the view of most linguists) that lolcats (among other such stupid things) are not "grammatically incorrect" or involve "syntax errors". Instead, they allude to particular demographics of society by appealing to regular grammatical changes. See here and here. --Aidhoss 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As someone above says, this "is just the kind of slightly obscure internet thing that normal people look up on wikipedia when they don't get what it is". I just did, now I do. This is what wikipedia is for. Mhardcastle 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above, I have been seeing these sorts of images for a long time, it was only recently that I have been able to find a term to describe it. Any search terms I used only supplied more of the images, (many 100s, if not 1000s) but no real documentation on it until I recently found multiple articles and blogs linking to this page. 205.161.214.82 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now that the article has been improved. I've been seeing these images for quite a while now, but never had a name for them. The shorter version of the article is appropriate for a long-lived Internet fad, and it has a couple of references. emk (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I think this is a legit article documenting a phenomenon. Even if one thinks it is stupid it doesn't justify deletion, and people do reference this page. In fact, I just found this page through a link from another blog refrerncing it. It has value. Oniamien 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as reasonably popular internet meme with sufficient nontrivial sources cited in the article. Kind of a no-brainer I think. Ford MF 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At this point, it's a verifiable Internet phenomenon. As others have mentioned, if AYB and O RLY have articles, then I really do think this qualifies. nmw 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article provides citations to notable sources, so claims of original research and non-notability are rebutted. Claims of "I do/don't think this meme is important" are irrelevant, we have objective measures for article importance, and it's notability of citations. Here there are notable citations, so "Keep" is the correct approach. Moreover, with Internet memes, references accumulate over time. It'd be absurd to delete the article and then rebuild it from scratch in two or three months when Conan or Colbert makes the off-hand mention. --Thomas B 03:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is a genuine subculture internet phenomenon. We look to Wikipedia to document stuff like this. It's widespread, wide-known, and has been analyzed intelligently by numerous sources. It's an internet meme that should be resourced here. StrangeAttractor 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are reliable and notable references for this now, so I see no reason to delete it. It's a notable folk culture phenomenon. Esn 09:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Referenced and reasonably noteworthy. MrZaius^talk 09:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The only reason I am relisting this debate is because there has apparently been revisions made to the article which could change the minds of those who have already commented. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ridiculously popular internet phenomenon. Resolute 15:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - changing !vote as the rewritten version now seems fine — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm in ur commentz/ Votin for Strong keep Lolcats are a legitimate internet phenomenon; as the article now documents they are receiving some attention from mainstream media as well as academics. At this point it appears as though the best reason for deleting this article is that some wikipedians think it's dumb. Sorry, that's not good enough. Manderr 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep 1) This is a legitimate internet phenomenon, at the same scale as Goatse.cx or Randy Constan (Internet Peter Pan) - both of which have their own articles on Wikipedia. The growing popularity of Lolcat shows that this phenomenon is definitely making an impacting on the culture of the Internet (at least in English speaking parts). 2) One caveat is that the current Lolcat article is of poor quality, however; it should be cleaned up to show history of the Lolcat, including first use (probably from SomethingAweful) and popular uses (such as on Twitter). 3) The strongest aspect of Wikipedia is its ability to quickly take in historical and cultural events from around the world, that an "official" encyclopedia may deem not "worthy", but obviously enough people around the world do. The strength and breath of Wikipedia's articles is what makes it an Internet and human cultural force. Viscount9 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this certainly is in widespread use. --Lunus 20:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I actually can't even tell what this was nominated for? Notability - it has multiple sources which back up notability? Attribution? It is studiously well-sourced, especially for an internet meme. I don't understand what the problem is. --Haemo 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the original nomination reason has been lost in one of the edits that created this trainwreck. The stated reason by the nom was "pick a reason, including but not limited to: stupid, non-notable, vanity crap". Or, basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep omg im changing my vote per the overhaul on this article shows notability and rids it of OR. nice work. the_undertow ^talk 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the response, there's no way this article is going to get deleted. But I thought it funny to mention this. Of the 5 sources cited on the article only 3, all blogs, of those actually make mention to the definition of "lolcats" ([5] [6] [7]). Of those 3, one references one of the other three sources ([8]) and the other two reference this article for the definition. —Mitaphane _?|! 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm in ur afds, mergins ur memes It's a geniune meme, but not on the scale of Goatse. The article is fluff anyday, talking about the "mystical origins of Caturday" Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is a related aspect not mentioned--libraries using cute name including "cat" for their online CATalogs. Some places have an obvious combination: Princeton's was called Tigercat until they sobered up. New York Public's is called CATNYP. Unfortunately I am not aware of any articles talking about the naming in general, though there are dozens of examples. DGG 02:36, 30 April 2007 (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.