This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete 7 keep/24 delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable silliness. Listed previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter. Decision was to redirect to ROFL Attack, which was subsequently deleted. Article was then redirected to LOL (Internet slang) and then recreated. Let's end this madness. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter(game). — Phil Welch 20:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fully as noteable as several other articles on internet memes that are not under consideration for deletion. CNichols 20:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 12th edit. — Phil Welch 20:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beside the point. We're discussing this one. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show these other "equally notable memes" -- and if they are truly as notable as this one -- I'll gladly nominate them for AfD also. :) Xoloz 20:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete, per my and others' arguments on the related VfDs. This is getting ridiculous. android79 21:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Carnildo 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dottore So 22:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is even a borderline speedy, because to all intents and purposes it is re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course, notable meme. Note that in previous VfD debate the result was redirect which is for the purposes of VfD policy is equal to keep and redirect so it can't qualify as speedy, or anything like that. So if you support the previous VfD decision, vote keep.  Grue  05:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should have been deleted as a matter of course when the article to which it redirects was deleted; redirects that "refer to non-existent pages" are valid CSDs. And It is speediable as a re-creation of the content voted for deletion as ROFL_Attack. It's the content that matters, not the title. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content of ROFL Attack is only the part of the content of Roflcopter. There was never a consensus to delete the current content in its entirety.  Grue  17:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Examine the first VAfD and you'll see that the discussion to redirect, on 15-8 count in favor of deletion was quite a stretch of the closer's discretion. At best, it is a very weak result, to say nothing of the eventual deletion of the article to which the redirect was made. Xoloz 20:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought it was borderline which is why I listed it on AfD. I was, however, quite certain we'd see the result we have now :) — Phil Welch 20:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to estalbish notability. Martg76 07:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep: Article fails to establish notability but Google succeeds. Sirex 12:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC) I have insufficient edits and am therefore compelled to side with Phil Welch. Sirex 09:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 12th edit. — Phil Welch 20:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 92 hits in Google Groups, which is where you'd expect to find it if it were really an important Internet meme. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep PowerGamer6
  • User has <50 edits — Phil Welch 04:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newgrounds involvement is not notable (again). Hamster Sandwich 23:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above, with no rude comments. --Phroziac ^(talk) 23:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It does not matter under how many different titles this is remade, the result will be the same. -Splash 23:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and weak merge with LOL (Internet slang). This isn't strong enough to stand on its own, and the sheer volume of internet fads and memes is astounding. How about a fads and memes wiki? Or would that just be completely stupid? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{23:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)} (see Splash, I'm back!)[reply]
  • I call it Cruftipedia. — Phil Welch 04:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Others call it Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Uncle G 14:48:27, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth afterwards. --Calton | Talk 23:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The point here is that we're talking about whether we have kept up with usage and slang. These are the concerns of a dictionary of a particular sort, and not an encyclopedia. The general phenomenon of which this is a part is far better described already. If we have an article on "insult," we would not then need an article on each individual insult. The "meme," such as it could be implied to be, is a minor single case of the general. Geogre 03:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete As I said the last time, the Google bar for internet phenomena is relatively higher, and this little thing fails miserably. NN, sockpuppets, and prior decisions. Xoloz 04:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Internet slang or LOL (Internet slang). Not notable enough to have its own article. — JIP | Talk 05:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then redirect. -Sean Curtin 05:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just silly. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there's a list of internet slang, this might merit an entry but leave the meme following to sites that specialize in it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most certainly not notable. Indrian 22:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What a delightful, amusing, and perfectly harmless little article. Why would anyone want to delete this? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Highly popular game in certain circles. Whether we think it's stupid is irrelevant. Only its notability is meaningful. Superm401 | Talk 15:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • 92 hits in Google Groups (USENET) does not suggest notability to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we must stop having one level of notabilty for internet articles and another for "real world" articles.
  • Sorry, this is my vote, I forgot to sign it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (again) per Geogre and Dpbsmith. Barno 17:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is not only a piece of Internet history (which we have a duty to maintain as the encyclopedia of record), but also something which can generate interest and which may generate additional interest in the future.
  • Anon's first edit. Looks like they finally found us out. — Phil Welch 04:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 05:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, stupid. Proto t c 11:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. If this article isn't one thing, it's non-notable. It's a piece of internet history, as Welch already stated. It's a very common used term on IRC networks and gaming forums. If people would like to get rid of this article, we might as well get rid of words like 'cool', 'fabulous', 'awesome' etc. which are also terms belonging to a subculture--SoothingR 17:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um...I never said that. Anyway, while cool (along with cool (African philosophy) have reasonable articles, that's because they're notable and relate to a cultural phenomenon that seems to be…well, seems to date back from Africa. Awesome has an article, but it's about an obscure video game and not the slang term, while Fabulous redirects to a Brooklyn rapper. I think your arguments for inclusion are arguments for inclusion in a glossary of slang, not an encyclopedia. Even then it might not be notable—what a bunch of sixteen year old kids say to each other on gaming forums isn't very high on the notability scale. — Phil Welch 17:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have articles on those words to get rid of. You're thinking of a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The dictionary is over there, and it has articles with the colloquial and slang meanings of "cool", "fabulous", and "awesome". It even has "roflcopter". Uncle G 18:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is as notable as GameFAQs message boards probably. Ashibaka (tock) 02:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely non-notable, and precedent is clearly for deletion. Chick Bowen 04:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This sort of thing gives Wikipedia it's depth and color. Good article on a minor use of a very notable acronym. Rx StrangeLove 05:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has a history and is a common term, no reason to delete the article that illustrates and explains it further. Plus it might save some people time, by not having to explain it to others. Rx BlueMech 02:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's second contribution. — Phil Welch 10:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Convince me that it really is notable and I'll change my vote. It's all just "proof by repeated assertion." Why not Cite your sources? I am now going to try three more informal tests myself. I haven't tried them yet and I have no idea yet what the result will be. First, I'm going to see how often it has been mentioned in Slashdot; second, in Wired; and third, in The New York Times. Slashdot: "No stories were found that match your query." Search Wired News: Search Error: No query results for "roflcopter" . Search Wired Magazine: Search Results for "roflcopter": No query results. The New York Times (online search service available via my local public library): "Searching for roflcopter did not find any documents." If it's "a common term" and "part of Internet history" and a "notable meme" why haven't Slashdot and Wired mentioned it even once? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User:Grue seems to have created a mirror of this under his userspace at User:Grue/Roflcopter, possibly to facilitate re-creation of the article. I believe we deserve an explanation, as I cannot think of a good faith explanation for this action. — Phil Welch 23:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're suppose to assume good faith, that's my understanding of the policy anyway. He seems to have an interest in ASCII art, it probably has something to do with that. In any case, did you ask him on his talk page? He might see the question faster there. Rx StrangeLove 05:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm keeping it for reference. I never recreated deleted content in the past and I'm not going to recreate it in this case (if it gets deleted after all). Can't see how it's different from adding deleted stuff to BJAODN.  Grue  05:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strikes me as bizarre and slightly pointless, that's all. Especially considering the difficulties we've had with people trying to weasel around this article's deletion. I asked here because it's a public issue relating to this AfD and not a private issue between Grue and myself. I assumed good faith, but in this case I decided to "trust, but verify". Nothing against Grue, whom I hardly know, but the issue deserved some explanation for the reasons I've already explained. But hey, if you happen to like the article, whatever. — Phil Welch 07:36, 19 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.