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.

The topic is an Internet meme concerning nationalist stereotypes about Poland, an Eastern European country. As experienced editors will know, Wikipedia has a long history of disruptive conduct related to nationalist disputes in Eastern Europe; compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. I therefore disregard all opinions by IP accounts or those with very few contributions and by editors who have block log entries for problematic conduct with respect to Eastern Europe, on the basis that this is the easiest way to filter out (a) opinions and walls-of-text based on nationalist prejudice and (b) some of the canvassing that in my experience takes place in this sort of dispute. I'm also discounting the WP:JUSTAVOTE by Doc9871, as well as the opinions by Night of the Big Wind and Pultusk, who do not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion (i.e. notability and sourcing).

After doing that, the headcount is: delete 16, keep 6. This means I need to decide whether any of the "keep" arguments are so strong, or any of the "delete" arguments so weak, that they prevent me from finding a consensus for deletion. That is not the case. The discussion is mostly about the number and quality of sources that could make the topic pass WP:N. The "keep" opinions argue that reliable sources about the topic exist, while the "delete" side argues that there is too little reliable or significant coverage, or that it is too transient. These are all valid arguments and it is not for me to judge who is right. On that basis, the numbers prevail and I find that there is consensus to delete the article. There is also another consideration, which is not decisive but supports this outcome: The contentious nature and difficult sourcing situation of this article, as seen in this discussion and the resulting WP:AE request, is likely to produce continued disputes and disruption if it is kept.  Sandstein  21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polandball[edit]

Polandball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable internet injoke or meme. Wikipedia is not knowyourmeme. We do not have to document each and every one. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE – This discussion may have been influenced by canvassing on an external Internet forum. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I see there is a passing mention of and link to the DYK in broader discussion. No mention of or link to this AfD, no "please come put your input in". Just running commentary. Perhaps a small number of users poked around for a few seconds and found this, but there's really nothing there that indicates clear canvassing. Furthermore, the article has been tagged for days now, so your silly little note just looks like you trying to play news reporter. Sorry, sweetheart, you've been scooped. Run along, now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consider a similar sudden incoming of editors that the Zhirinovsky's ass article has seen recently (with at least 3 from WF/WR), and note sheer numbers of known EEML editors here (at least 4, and even User:Hodja Nasreddin is here, with more people involved in related discussions), as well as Wikipediaforum or Wikipediareview editors here (at least 4 known), and that most of those are among the most commenting here... GreyHood Talk 14:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, none of the EEML editors should be commenting here at all, as they are all under an interaction ban with the creator of the article, Russavia. It may be that if they did not participate here the outcome might be different, possible less desirable. This is a calculated risk the Arbitration Committee took when it imposed the IBAN. If you do not like it, complain to them. It should also be noted, that as this article was nominated for DYK it would have received all the needed scrutiny, even without the participation of the editors involved in the WP:EEML case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you had paid one whit of attention when you left your ridiculous "me-too!" comment at the current AE request, you will find that the administrative community is not wholly convinced that AfD participation is an iBan® violation. Furthermore, you seem to be making a blatantly dishonest attempt to characterise the iBan® as being directed as those evil EEMLers, when it applies just as equally to R, whose emblazoning of a cartoon lampooning Polish editors across his userpage can only reasonably be interpreted as baiting of those he is under an interaction ban with, your brain-dead defence of that action notwithstanding. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EEML is dead and gone, unless you have a hell of lot of evidence to back up your seeming insinuations that there is still behind-the-scenes collusion going on there. Former EEML members edit mainly on, well, Eastern European topics. Last I checked, Poland was indeed in Eastern Europe. And if we are to discount editors who have been involved in this topic area in the past, we should probably kick your ass (ha-ha) to the curb as well, given the fact that you have been R's wingman on more than a few occasions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EEML here is used not as a reference to the EEML arbitration case itself, but to refer to the specific group of editors who have placed under an interaction ban with Russavia by the Arbitration Committee (in another decision). We could as well call them the RU-IBAN group. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you—of all people—really want to be throwing around ArbCom context? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of any DYK nominations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But did you check any of the sources which show that the meme is notable? It is more than notable, and I have even used the Polish sources to establish this notability. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if Wikipedia was oh internet or Encyclopedia Dramatica then yeah, sure, the inclusion of a racist internet memes would be justifiable. But last I checked this is an encyclopedia not a troll site - let the troll sites do what they do, and let the online encyclopedia be an encyclopedia. There's no indication that this particular internet meme has achieved sufficient status to have been picked up by reliable sources, much less any reason why the Wikipedia needs to suffer any kind of embarrassment by featuring bigotry on its front page (the article has been nominated for DYK). There's been enough embarrassing SNAFUs with respect to DYK lately. This article should be deleted, never mind being featured on the front page.
(For the sake of clarification: I happen to think that some of the Polandball cartoons are actually pretty funny. At the same time, the few and in between funny versions of the joke are much outnumbered by the fact that it's a kind of medium which easily lends itself to 13 year old internet morons giving vent to their racist and xenophobic stupidity. Unfortunetly most of the cartoons out there reflect that. What's next, racist offensive "Negro jokes" on Wikipedia's front page, simply because they may or may not be an "internet meme" some users find them humorous, and because it's "April Fools" so things which are otherwise considered obnoxious and offensive are "ok"? Whole thing is a disgrace.VolunteerMarek 05:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If opinion pieces can not be reliable sources, why does WP:RSOPINION say the opposite? You're making up the rule that they don't establish notability. Coverage at critical reviews is frequently used as a factor for the notability of films, books and works of art, so why not internet memes? Diego (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of the lack of notability. However, the content of the jokes should not be relevant. It's simply an issue of lack of notability for me. Wikipedia should not document each and every internet injoke out there. There are other sites and Wikis devoted to that. If this joke had reached the level of notability as, say the song "Friday" then I would have no problems with it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's two problems here. One is just the basic non-notability of the article itself. The other is the DYK nomination. Aside from some other issues in the background, it should be mentioned that even the place where this supposed meme supposedly originated is itself not even notable, apparantly. Krautchan.net simply redirects to Imageboard. This is scraping the bottom of some internet barrel for sake of "lulz".VolunteerMarek 06:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In relation to the above comments about unreliable sources, ignoring irrelevant rants, the following needs to be made known. Gazeta Wyborcza is a leading Polish newspaper, and Wojciech Orliński is one of the newspapers regular columnists. So his article more than means our WP:RS guideline. The article discusses the meme in depth. Cooltura is a weekly Polish cultural magazine published in the UK, and the article in it was republished by numerous other Polish sources, such as Interia.pl (one of Poland's largest web portals), so again is a reliable source. Claims that this source only mentions the subject in passing is totally wrong -- the article is discussing the meme in depth. Przegląd is a weekly Polish magazine, and does meet the threshold of a reliable source. This article is on the subject of internet memes, and has information on Polandball. Hiro appears to be a weekly Polish magazine as well. This article is one the subject of internet memes, and delves a little into two memes which relate to Poland---Polandball being one of those. As to accusations of racism, etc, the Cooltura article starts off with "Ostatnia internetowa moda wyśmiewająca Polskę i naszą flagę narodową, która szerzy się w cyberprzestrzeni to kolejny dowód na stale tlący się w kręgach zachodnich elit i wśród społeczeństw ideologiczny antypolonizm. Albo nie. W każdym razie obrażamy się jako pierwsi, zanim etatowi polonijni moraliści zapłoną świętym ogniem oburzenia. A potem, jak zwykle, spłoną ze wstydu." Translate it for yourselves, and see what is written. It would be great if people didn't mispresent sources like they have above. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore If one refers to pl:Wojciech Orliński it states "Od 1997 pracuje w "Gazecie Wyborczej", gdzie pisze głównie na tematy związane z kulturą masową." -- this states that since 1997, Orlinski has been a columnist with Gazeta Wyborcza, where he writes mainly on popular culture. Polandball is clearly popularly culture. His article has been passed off above as just some oped in a newspaper, but rather it is the complete opposite. It is an article on the meme, written by a notable journalist, who's field of expertise is pop culture, and published in one of the largest Polish newspapers. It's also not an opinion piece, it is a detailed article on the actual meme. Sorry, just need to detail the mischaracterisation of sources as was done above. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comments above are false and they misrepresent the sources. However, since myself and the author of the comments are subject to an interaction ban I am unable to provide a fully detailed adequate comment in response - bottomline though is that these are in fact just blogs and opinion pieces, not reliable source, and this can be easily verified. The fact that the above comments are explicitly replying to my comments is a direct violation of his interaction ban with me, per WP:IBAN which states that a user under an interaction ban is not allowed to reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;. Note that none of my comments referenced anything but the article itself.
At this point I find myself in an impossible position. If I address the comments made above (which are a clear violation of an interaction ban), then I risk violating the ban myself. If I don't address them then the person who violated an interaction ban "wins". My only recourse at this point would be to file an Arbitration Enforcement request against the user but I hope that it doesn't have to get to that.VolunteerMarek 07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you two have stated your views. We can allow for other people to judge the your positions. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup.VolunteerMarek 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Named sources" =/ "reliable sources". The "Polish newspaper article" is an opinion piece which merely mentions the thing in passing.VolunteerMarek 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can "expect" to have tons of scholarly sources all you want, but until they actually exist, it's not notable. See WP:CRYSTAL.VolunteerMarek 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to answer you before, VM. Apparently you have plainly misunderstood what I wrote. WP:CRYSTAL has no any relevance here. My point is obvious: memes, just as some other categories of subjects (recent events; many products of popular culture, especially modern ones) tend not to be covered by scholarly sources. And that's normal and not making memes less notable - often they remain much more notable than all those hundreds of thousands articles on little-known sportspeople or scientists. At least such is the reality. Then, for the meme which appeared just few years ago, this article has enough sources establishing the notability, and these sources are of decent level considering the kind of topic - and what we have is Polish (sic!) newspaper articles in the top-level Polish newspapers. Opinion pieces or not, does not matter as long as content is approved and edited by notable media. Anyway, it is quite obvious that memes and many other aspects of popular culture would not be covered neither by scholarly sources, nor by recent news. So we remain only with such categories as analysis / educational articles / opinion pieces / entertainment. And the article by Orliński is serious and detailed enough to be considered an educational and informational article, not an opinion piece - it conveys a quality description of what Polandball is and how it originated. GreyHood Talk 20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. The thing is, it actually does matter whether they are opinion pieces or not. Generally, opinion pieces - and it's easy to see that the Orlinski source is in the "Opinie" section of the paper - are not considered reliable sources, nor are they sufficient to establish notability. So we actually DON'T have "Polish (sic!) newspaper articles in the top-level Polish newspapers" here - we have one opinion piece from such a newspaper (Przeglad isn't a "top level Polish newspaper" anyway, it's more comparable, though with different politics, to something like Najwyższy Czas! in terms of circulation and non-mainstreamness (though at a different point in the political spectrum), which is itself probably not a reliable source overall. There's a possibility of confusion here though - before 1999 there was a magazine called Przeglad which was significant, but these are essentially different papers)VolunteerMarek 09:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces at reliable sources are valid for establishing notability, they have always been. The only caveat for their use is that they're identified as such when used to verify information in the article. Diego (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USELESS and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC are not valid arguments for deletion. A topic is deemed worthy of includion in the encyclopedia if third-party reliable sources think that it's important enough to write significant content about it. Diego (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article already mentions the fact that it has generalized to 'countryball', though it is still referred to as 'Polandball'.Estlandia (dialogue) 13:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's a bit hard to keep up with current usage if you have to cite news items. --84.153.90.97 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced.You do realize that by confirming that there are no reliable sources to use besides an online user generated Russian Wikimedia platform, you demonstrated pretty strongly how non-notable the subject is?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I call yet again to discuss the merits of the subject, notability and sources, not the Wikipedia users involved. Continuous breaching WP:NPA, arguments ad hominem and trying to bring personal issues on talk is only disrupting discussion. GreyHood Talk 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already discussed the sources. I see that the school paper written by some undegrad student which people were claiming was a reliable source from "University of Rzeszow" is no longer in the article. That's a start. However, the remaining sources are not reliable either. Is this a reliable source [9]? What is it, actually? Or this [10]? That's a "MediaWiki-powered online encyclopedia focused on Internet subcultures, folklore, and memes". This Knowyourmeme is pretty much along the same lines, another user generated "encyclopedia". Might as well allow Wikipedia articles to serve as reliable sources for each other. As far as Polish sources go this and this are essentially blogs/portals with no editorial oversight. Not reliable. There are only two POTENTIALLY reliable sources in the article, Gazeta Wyborcza and Przeglad. Both however are just opinion pieces and the second one only mentions this particular meme in passing.
Some memes are notable some aren't. If this particular one has the staying power of lulzcats or Chuck Norris jokes then in several months or a year there will be actual reliable source to document its notability. But there aren't yet. And keeping the article on the basis of what might happen in the future is simply WP:CRYSTALBALL.
I also wish to note that a lot of the "Keep" notes above appear to be along the lines of "I think it's funny and I personally heard of it, so keep" - i.e. they do not actually address Wikipedia policy on notability.VolunteerMarek 06:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOENG does not say that we require English language sources. It says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." So delete per WP:NOENG is an invalid deletion argument. If the available sources for this article meet the GNG in any language then it meets the GNG. ϢereSpielChequers 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the point is they don't really meet the GNG, and if this supposedly notable worldwide phenomenon really was notable there would surely be reliable sources in English (and several other languages) as well as Polish. waggers (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. For example Dmitry Gennadyevich Medvedev relies only on Russian sources, with the exception of one English source which gives information on the special op. WP:GNG simply states detailed coverage which is independent of the subject, and which are reliable. 2 Polish newspapers, 1 Polish culture magazine and 1 Polish weekly magazine more than meet GNG. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL--Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Section break for small browsers[edit]

(This section for edit by small or mobile-phone browsers.)
Negative yes, perhaps even in poor taste. But we are not censored, we delete unsourced attack pages on sight, but this is not unsourced. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the attacks are unsourced. Having a ref tag in the article does not grant the article some sort of protective shield against deletion. --RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that editors have been indefinitely banned for using unsourced information in articles? Everything in the article is sourced, and to reliable sources. You would be advised to stop engaging in personal attacks on myself, because accusing other editors of the things you have just done is a bannable offense under WP:DIGWUREN. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be reliable but they do not need to be current, this is not Wikinews. Memes are by their nature transient, some will come and go without leaving sufficient mark to meet the GNG, but if this has met the GNG then it doesn't matter whether the meme is still running or not - so a reference from 2010 is perfectly OK for wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a racist undercurrent here. As the article says, the meme is used to ridicule certain jingoist attitudes and internet personae, not really Poland.Estlandia (dialogue) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can be used to propagate memes. Coverage and promotion are often indistinguishable. It's basically the same problem we have with every garage band that has one or two minor press mentions and references in a few blogs. Such articles are not usually created for genuine encyclopedic reasons, but for promotion. We should cover memes when they have unquestionably become part of Internet culture – without Wikipedia's help. JN466 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't temporary but even with the references included, I dont see significant coverage here so notability, temporary or otherwise, has not been demonstrated.--RadioFan (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the above seems to indicate that this article has been written not with the intent to inform but to prove a point, and with disregard to neutrality towards the subject or to Reliable Sources. Therefore I am keeping my vote for delete. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't commented on one Wikimedia online user generated project being used to source Wikipedia? Which as far as I understand is against WP:RS.

As to the rest Also, memes is such a topic that is rarely discussed in 100% neutral and serious way-sorry we are on Wikipedia, not some satirical website of poor quality. Articles here are to be presented in neutral and encyclopaedic way. Since you say that this article is not serious and not neutral, it further supports the view that it should be deleted.

So the article is not about Poland but about countries in general? Than why not a different name? In any case, the article now focuses much on showing the meme against Poland as justified and even when using biased sources, carefully avoids mentioning that even them admit to anti-polish and negative aspects of portrayal of Poland in the meme. Again showing that this article from the start was not fulfilling Wiki criteria. in fact you show that he is an established journalist writing in several notable editions As for Cooltura-it's hardly notable or RS. As for NIE-its hardly RS and certainly can't be used without attribution and explanation. Since the author so clearly demonstrates his specific very non-neutral views, we can't use him as neutral source that is objectively describing a meme whose primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland. In any case the meme is hardly notable nor encyclopaedic to be included in Wiki.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but the available sources clearly prefer "Polandball" and google gives more hits to "Polandball" tooGoogle gives results for thousands of terms and things that aren't on Wiki.

Wiki has many articles on many niche publications. Existence of their articles doesn't make them RS, especially when it is a newspaper about events in UK and life of emigrants.ANd especially when they are written by authors with clearly demonstrated bias.

To sum up:out of the sources used, none, besides one are notable. Only one from Gazeta Wyborcza is notable, and it is a opinion piece written by an author with rather strong views. The use of wikis to source a wiki article can't be accepted, neither the use of authors from niche magazines that have very biased views as objective sources of information. Or the deletion of information that informs about negative role of the meme. But as stated, you have only one source to use in this article. That hardly makes the topic notable in the first place. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


media attention is enough There is only one editorial piece in major newspaper and that's it. Hardly "media attention".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remembert that Wiki is not a collection of slang words, dictionary, memes etc. Also:there are thousands of words, people, titles that give results in google in thousands but are not covered by Wikipedia.

See:

Wikipedia:NOT#INFO As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Additional guidelines connected to the issue: Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary Usage, slang, and/or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good policies, but no point in reminding of them here. Wikipedia already has hundreds and thousands articles about memes and phrases. So these are perfectly encyclopedic topics, of course if we have reliable sources. The number of google hits can serve as an additional argument to show that a subject reported by reliable sources is notable and that we need to have an article on it in order to uphold the informational purpose of the encyclopedia. GreyHood Talk 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia already has hundreds and thousands articles about memes and phrases" And thousands upon thousands remain outside Wikipedia. Considering the fact that for this article, we can barely find one opinion piece in RS, this suggests the fate of this article should be the same. The number of google hits can serve as an additional argument As mentioned, you get thousands of phrases, people, words easily googled in thousands but which aren't on Wiki(and for good reasons). that a subject reported by reliable sources Except here we aren't dealing with one. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"So these are perfectly encyclopedic topics, of course if we have reliable sources."
Only the most notable of the notable. As of now, I think we have too many of these articles as it is. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:NOTPAPER and WP:BELONG are relevant as arguments against that view - the inclusion criteria for articles is the WP:GNG which is applied independently to each article. Diego (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fellows, let's be reasonable, huh? This is not the time or the place to perform some kind of a half-assed autopsy on a fish... And I'm not going to stand here and see that thing cut open and see that little Kintner boy spill out all over the dock. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Non sequitur (literary device) --RadioFan (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The level of sourcing required is determined by WP:N not WP:OTHERSTUFF.--RadioFan (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 2[edit]

Comment: Main issue is notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH WP:Wikipedia is not censored is a valid argument if the only opposition for the article comes from it making fun of Polish. Diego (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't make fun of the Polish, but rather describes the meme as per the multiple, independent, reliable sources. Also, thank you Pultusk, I noticed you are Polish and can understand that the meme is in effect satirical, yet biting, humour. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many editors are saying that WP is not knowyourmeme, and seem to be basing this on KYM being used as a reference in the article, which no-one has challenged either on the article, nor on the talk page.

KYM is only used to reference part of this statement (part referenced to KYM marked in bold):

Krautchan.net is a German-language imageboard whose /INT/ board is frequented by English-speaking netizens. The beginning of the Polandball meme is credited to Falco, a Brit on /INT/, who in September 2009 created the meme using MS Paint in an apolitical way to troll Wojak, a Pole on the same board who contributes in broken English, after which Polandball cartoons were enthusiastically drawn by Russians.

The rest of that sentence is references to two reliable sources (both Polish newspapers).

As to knowyourmeme, it is well regarded as tracking and documenting internet memes -- that is it's business after all -- and is often referred to in media when the subject of internet memes arises. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KYM isn't exactly known for being well researched, at least they seem to have fixed their entry on Spurdo Spärde now. --157.157.160.183 (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to other reliable sources KYM is well researched and is notable for tracking memes and writing up on them. But in this case, it is the fact that other reliable sources have independently reported on the subject that makes it notable. KYM is only used to add a couple of facts which weren't stated in the other articles, but which are somewhat needed. I would never have written an article on Argentina is white, because it lacks details, independent coverage by reliable sources; Polandball however does have such coverage. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:36, 3 April 2012 (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.
Category