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. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor Jesus (meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptor Jesus (Result: Delete).

Article has been recreated recently and is a copy of the above article, albeit under a new name. Since the previous AFD was in 2005, I am renominating the article for deletion instead of a G4 speedy delete.

Topic seems not to have reliable sources with regards to the topics popularity, leading me to believe that the topic in not notable. A quick Google search turned no links up that would pass Links normally to be avoided.

(If the result of this discussion is keep, the article should be moved to Raptor Jesus)

G.A.S^talk 04:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —G.A.S^talk 04:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —G.A.S^talk 05:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Evisceration per nom. rarr.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ive done some google searches, by the way, and could not find any coverage outside of blogs, humorous sites, ephemera. when a band of this name releases their second album, we'll create an article, so maybe fanboys could start practicing. "meme" is not the same as "notable" outside of moms basement, unless you consider meme as a WIDELY used idea spreading like a gene, like, say, "Military domination of the world by the US". all this spoken by a card carrying (former) d&d playing, (current) star trek/monty python quoting, too white and nerdy, xkcd reading, slashdotting son of an effin rocket scientist. oh, gotta go take out the trash...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WHOSE RESPONSIBLE THIS? - by which of course I mean Delete. 4Chan is about as far from a reliable source of anything as you can get; come back when you can provide commentary on the meme from a variety of independent secondary sources. At the moment if fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: just tidied up the article to improve the English, and added some citation needed templates. Still fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No !vote from me, I love Raptor Jesus. Some form of coverage can be found at Crave Online magazine but I'll let everyone else be the judge as to whether it constitutes non-trivial coverage. Just as Raptor Jesus will one day cast judgement upon you. JBsupreme (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Over 9000 Ghits!!11elevenDelete fails to meet general notability guidelines; I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Also lacks tits and should GTFO.  Chzz  ►  09:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon closer inspection of the deletion log, I recommend blacklisting the title as well. G.A.S^talk 10:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not with you on the blacklist. This is a genuine meme; I think it's absolutely possible to establish its notability, and if it's not possible now it may be at some time in the future. The issue at the moment is merely that that notability is not established by reliable sources within the article. Let's leave open the possibility of someone doing it better in the future. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted. Though I had to put the option on the table considering that the article has been speedy deleted 7 times already (see WP:SALT). G.A.S^talk 11:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as much as I love raptor Jesus, memes and other flavors of the month are not Wiki-material, UNLESS they are reported in mainstream/verifiable sources such as Lolcats--WngLdr34 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It doesn't matter if Raptor Jesus is deleted, he will rise again (probably over 9000 times). --Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it really needed to act like a meme spewing spambot here? Can't we all act like somewhat mature people or am I going to get a dose of the daily meme of the week here? --WngLdr34 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was originally going to make my comment by way of a humorously subtitled video of Hitler but thought better of it. But to the point, I don't think comedy is inimicable to a rational, clearly put argument. And taking something like the deletion of Raptor Jesus too seriously would itself risk turning Wikipedia into farce. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the creator of the page I have added a semi notable website that has a small section of raptor jesus ( as posted by JBsupreme )and I also Strongly suggesest that it should not be deleted. If it is not then the chance of raptor Jesus appearing in a more notable chance is highly likely since it the chance of it getting in a note worthy position without a Wikipedia page is just beside nill. I also think that if my page is to be deleted then the subject of rapor jesus should certainly NOT be blacklisted due the fact that someone may find new sources and do a better job on it. Fanoffans --Fansoffans (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. you dont get WP AT ALL. this is not a place to help less notable subjects become notable. we DO NOT WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY. I love raptor jesus, but until brit hume discusses him, it appears to be relatively nonnotable. and its NOT YOUR PAGE. and I AM SHOUTING. PLEASE read wp policies at your leisure and try to understand. Look, i love going to 4chan occasionally and revelling in juvenile humor (and of course for the articles), but that is not what we do HERE. except behind the scenes, where its clearly delineated as NOT articlespace. and im smiling as i say this (damn the emoticons, full english ahead!)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising site for an internet meme I am just saying that it increases the chance of notability, I fully agree that non notable subjects should not be here but I disagree that Raptor Jesus is not notable as the O RLY meme and other memes have just a little more noticeably. Also I understand that it is not MY page but surely you must agree after making it you feel some attachment to it as you to do to most things one makes.Furthermore I understand that its not what you do HERE since most people can see and its not what I am trying to do HERE either. Fanoffans --82.40.112.172 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the user above me ( Fanoffans ) has stated I also agree that it should not be deleted or black listed as raptor Jesus is notable just no notable sites have covered it. Anyone can see if they type into Google that raptor Jesus is a popular internet meme and does belong on Wikipedia for the average Joe who is looking to find out what it is all about. so I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this being deleted --KSI Geneticblizzard (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, since you are new to Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the argument that you have just made, that the world outside of Wikipedia has yet to document this, is a strong argument for Wikipedia not having an article about it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and it does not include things that have yet to actually be properly documented parts of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: Just for the sake of arguments "yet to actually be properly documented parts of the corpus of human knowledge" Would this not mean that everything in human existence should not be on Wikipedia since at one point everything was once "yet to actually be" also anything worth being notable was previously documents parts of the corpus of the human knowledge.
• Delete despite all the rabid fanboyism above. Absolutely no secondary sources for this dumb meme. Kill and salt. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay With everyone jumping on the notable and fan boy wagon I guess I should help elaborate. I think it should stay because as everyone has already stated in theory it is notable but normally theory does not count on Wikipedia. I think it should stay because its clear than future exempts will be made to establish it. I also agree that black listing is not an option due to it being very well known meme and has non notability notability if you know what I mean. It is in the same lengths as gullible jokes , everyone knows them but there is no real notable evidence on them. --NerdXD (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC) — NerdXD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• I get the feeling this AFD is heavily canvassed. Closing admin, pay attention to all the slobbering, blind fanboys. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you implying just because we support the Raptor Jesus article that we are now "Fanboys"? I'm not sure that I understand your way of thinking, and I am not sure why you are so against a simple internet meme. There is a wikipedia article on almost everything that I search, so there is no logical reason as to why Raptor Jesus should not have an article. I also have come to notice that I am now being singled out, simply because I appear to be new to Wikipedia, when you have no evidence of how much I know about Wikipedia, or even if I possess another wikipedia account, and am simply using a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSI Geneticblizzard (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I presume you also know about WP:SOCK? G.A.S^talk 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Please read WP:N and tell me how you think this meme is notable. Have any reliable, third party sources covered it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not answered my questions yet.
    • You're so defensive about the article. We have to have a cutoff as to what should have an article and what shouldn't, and just saying "but X has an article, why not Y" doesn't hold water. I'm not singling you out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To say that I am being so defensive about this is a false statement, I am simply showing a little support for an article that I think should be a wikipedia page. I have seen less notable articles, trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSI Geneticblizzard (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Please gentlemen take this to the talk pages , we are here to discuss why this page should be kept on Wikipedia ( which is should ) and could an admin lock the Raptor Jesus page due to high amounts of graffiti from non supporting users during our article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to mention for the record I did add to article an semi-notable source which is a report about raptor Jesus on a internet article for a magazine. This should boost the brownie points for raptor Jesus being notable since it is mentioned in a credible source such as a wide spread magazine --Fansoffans (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the reposing but another little side note. Does it not prove that raptor Jesus is notable since these people are all turning up to debate about how notable the article is ?--Fansoffans (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not even close. Just one source isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed but it is certainly better then one and does prove that it has some credibility to be an article. It should also hold of deletion till I serch through thousands of Google hits trying to find a small scrap of evidence that is notable on raptor Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Internet meme. It is lacking a picture of an Internet meme.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure if this is what you ment but on teh article there is a picture and it does depict it as a meme --Fansoffans (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant exactly what I said. There is no picture of an Internet meme on the page Internet meme. So merge Raptor Jesus with that article. Specifically into this section--Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh I see , sorry I had a bit of a dumb moment ha ha. Yet alas I must disagree with you since even on the internet meme page raptor Jesus is no mentioned and most of the memes have there own articles so there is no need for a picture. --Fansoffans (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further note to add to the record: Some kind person has added a source to the raptor Jesus article that one could define as notable. It was added under references and is a meme encyclopedia which has a large section of pictures and explains what the raptor Jesus meme is. Current Source Count ( CSC ) : 2 --Fansoffans (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another wiki is not a reliable source. Anyone can edit a wiki. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If another wiki is not a notable source then this wiki is classes as one , is that not true ?--Fansoffans (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we can't use Wikipedia to source another Wikipedia article, but if another site uses us as a reference that's fine. Those other sites have different rules. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Compromise solution: Redirect to Internet meme and protect. I think the single source discussing this topic is enough to substantiate a redirect. As an added bonus it would stave off the would be 4channers from trying to recreate this under some new title next time. Hopefully a win-win. 76.102.99.251 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• HOW DO I DELETED ARTICLE? –xeno^talk 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Has Raptor Jesus Answered Your Prayers of "Keep"?: This here AfD is famous now (sorta, complete with picture goodness): Wikipedia: 20 articles earmarked for deletion, Telegraph (UK) -- Of course all the comments so far are also about Raptor Jesus. --Milowent (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hilarious - of all the ways I might possibly be quoted in the Telegraph, this is the least likely way I could possibly imagine. I had to check the page header five times to confirm I was reading a newspaper and not a 14 year old's blog. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears that the telegraph must be reconciled as a notable source and I am sure this would count towards raptor Jesus notability will it not ? Added. CSC : 3 --Fansoffans (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for the quite simple and obvious reason that it isn't about this subject. It's an article about Wikipedia, that provides no fact-checked reliable content about this subject at all. Heck, the journalist didn't even fact check what xe wrote about Wikipedia. (We have no "moderators", here.) Uncle G (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning sources: In order to prove the subject's notability, a source would have to provide significant coverage, in reliable, independent, secondary sources. In other words, the sources should describe non-trivial artistic impact, cultural impact, and/or general popularity. Specifically, these sources should be able to answer the following: Criticism?/Reception by the public at large (not just the on-line community)? Who came up with the idea? G.A.S^talk 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not want. Doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, even with the last-minute intervention of the Daily Telegraph. But perhaps we should interpret this as divine intervention: dare we risk the wrath of a dromaeosaurid deity? We can merge this to List of internet memes anyway. Fences&Windows 20:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously non-notable, no significant coverage. There are places for junk like this and they cover it fully. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Crush by diplodocus. the wub "?!" 14:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for brownie points may I say that the last article for discussion on raptor jesus had ALOT less input than this and hopefully this will stay open till Tuesday so this shows that it has grown ALOT in popularity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No where in the bible does it say Jesus was not a Velociraptor does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.121.12 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - still no coverage in any reliable sources. (They're hard to come by for internet memes, but the really notable ones, like Rickrolling and Lolcats, have them.) Wouldn't object to it being recreated as a redirect to List of internet memes; but not every meme needs to be mentioned there, let alone have its own article. We're not Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Robofish (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Burninate. FWIW, I found this AfD through a Telegraph article. Subtle canvassing or slight notability bump? I report, you decide. Also note that the text bubbles in the illustration provided are not canon. They should read "Raptor Jesus, is this baby for sale?" - "It is now LOL!" 66.68.113.5 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant comment removed. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stub - A simple image search turned this [1]. As you can see there are about 121,000 results currently. Apparently people actually have heard of this. I would like to see this moved to a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubanator87 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This user attempted to insert xe's !vote into that of 66.68.113.5 (talk · contribs) without signature, leading to the false impression that 66.68.113.5 made the comment. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Robofish. Ottre 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It is not even close. The sources cited by the article consist of cites devoted to promoting the meme with the exception of the Crave article, which barely mentions the subject. None of this nor any potential sources mentioned on this page (including another passing mention in the Telegraph article comes anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG. It is clear from reading the exhaustive discussion on this page that those who favor keeping the article either don't understand the notability guidelines or just don't care about them.Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:37, 6 October 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.