Wikipedia talk:Notability (memes)

message: I feel that most all internet memes are inherently non-notable, as they exist for a couple weeks through people's inboxes and forwards, and then vanish again. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then why are Leeroy Jenkins and Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten still around after 2-3 or more years?  Any notable meme is one that has become a part of internet culture, and thus will not disappear in a week. Dark Shikari 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All memes are inherently non-notable 

message: What about YTMNDs that remain in the spotlight for a while? At what point do we declare the YTMND notable enough to be either a new article, or embedded in a current article? --Targetter 01:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say, when an independent, reliable source discusses it, at the minimum.  Better if there are two good sources.  In other words, pretty much never.  Mangojuicetalk 05:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YTMNDs 

message: The discussion here has effectively gone stale and has produced not much except a rather inadequate solution in search of a problem. The guideline itself has not been edited since I edited it five weeks ago, and the sole criterion is that the 'meme' be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. So it states nothing more than what is a) blindingly obvious and b) already in WP:WEB, WP:BIO and numerous other guidelines. As this page doesn't really fill any gaps I suggest we stick a  tag on it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I'm prone to agree with you.  As necessary as this is, it's not going anywhere until things change in other areas, and perhaps it'll be worth revisiting when things change at WP:RS. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also.  I never thought this did much to clarify anything beyond WP:V.  I changed the tag to a rejected just now.  Mangojuicetalk 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it from  - it needs to be moved to "Old discussions" on  at some point as well, but perhaps we should leave it for a week just in case anyone objects to rejecting. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reject

message: I'm not surprised that this never gained consensus - there's no reason for this page to exist as the criteria set out are basically the same as in WP:WEB and WP:N generally.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting, but redundant 

message: Is the old 9+10=21 meme notable to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia? Like say a redirect? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it  (See the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability.) Even it it does not meet the general notability guideline, the meme may be acceptable within an article if what is being said about the meme is verifiable from reliable sources. BTW, redirects are supposed to link to an article (or section of an article) that discusses, or places in context, the subject of the redirect. If you know of reliable sources discussing the meme, then you can add the information to an appropriate article in Wikipedia. But, please, provide enough information about the sources for other editors to find and evaluate those sources. Donald Albury 14:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ALright, I will look into it. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  9+10=21