Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archive 2

message: I don't think Red vs. Blue should be in this list. Sure it's mildly popular. But for my definition of internet meme, it has to be something that is inexplicably popular. Red vs. Blue is mildly popular because it's mildly good. It's pushed mainly by the people that make Red vs. Blue while most other memes are community based surges.
Enjoying a level of popularity doesn't make it a meme.
I say delete it from the list. FlameHead 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends how we're defining an internet meme. If it's merely something that's extremely popular, sure RvB belongs, but then we could add Google and Yahoo to the list, couldn't we? and why not? Myspace is on the list, isn't it? Should Youtube be here? I think we may need a better definition of what we consider a true meme. Most of the things on the list possess a cult status of sorts, or a particular sense of humor to grasp. I dunno, it's all a bit etheral. Elijya 18:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red vs. Blue meme? 

message: Supposedly on this list because of this site: www.geocities.com/thrush213/ Norton Rabbit page. Never heard of it, the website is minimal (some pictures and a looping song) and it reeks of a vanity link. Can anyone shed more light if this is indeed a valid meme? Elijya 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of this phenom before reading it here.  I took it for face value, but after checking, I can't find anything to verify it.  All kinds of Ed Norton fan sites, but that's nothing that any other celebrity has.  Nothing on Edward Norton article about it either.  I say delete it; if it's for real, someone will add it back, and have to explain it. Wavy G 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Norton 

message: This is an obvious fake.  Looks like somebody trying to make a shocking video, and failing miserably.  Not funny.66.161.184.138 07:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: totally irrelevant to it's meme-ness. i'm putting it back up. -Joeyramoney 01:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already voted as an AfD because of its lack of notability.  What is the rationale for adding it ?  Sandy 15:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tourette's Guy 

message: i think that the infamous image of a young fat kid with a lunchbox and a photoshopped teeshirt that reads "i f*ck on first date" is fairly notable. it seems pretty well known. what's the consensus for this being included? i've seen it much more than a lot of these other images featured. -Joeyramoney 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also seen this everywhere, on almost every forum I visit, on numerous websites, etc, but beyond the immediate chuckle, there is no extended humor or cult status. I don't suggest adding it. Mr d00d! 10:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original pic shows him with an pictureserver.funnyjunk.com/pics2/alf.jpg Alf shirt.--Wasabe3543 05:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  But still, that doesn't change its notability (no more than "Leeroy Jenkins," which many people have said was staged, but is still considered a phenomenon). Wavy G 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He's called images.google.com/images?q=svenno Svenno and was invented on the B3ta image board. He's a bandwagon/cliche/meme, whatever you want to call it. There are many hundreds of derivative Svenno pictures, especially Alf holding a svenno lunchbox. 195.173.23.111 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "i **** on first date" 

message: Let's talk about this.  I think this whole "No article, no Phenomenon" is horrible logic.  Just because deletionists don't want some of these things to have articles doesn't mean they shouldn't be included here.  Also, I was following Brian Pepper's wikipedia article's through its deletion and what the presumed concensus was that a listing here on this list was good enough.  
The Pokemon kid?  The GI Joe PSAs?! C'mon!  These HAVE to stay on the list!!
Sparsefarce 00:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put me into the list. I am a f*ng verifiable internet event with a nice round 339,000 www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mikkalai&btnG=Google+Search google hits who is known as a Polish KGB spy, anti-Socialist troll, many more, and best of all: IRREDENTIST and CHAUVINIST Communist ANTI-ROMANIAN plus ANTI-SEMIT VANDAL. Never mind. I think I get your idea. Now, please explain me how  WP:Verifiability can be verified for, say, "Pokemon Kid" I deleted and one of you restored? Where are the independent third party reputable references to confirm that he indeed hit the net hard? mikka (t) 04:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole "No article, no Phenomenon" debate 

message: *While I agree this page is useful, I think it's an obvious cruft magnet.  I'm going to start including indications of notability - non-internet notices; mainstream internet news coverage; inclusion on some sort of legitimate "best of the web" lists, etc - for each meme, and then after a while removing the ones that don't have any indications of notability as an internet meme (this doesn't mean removing the articles - it just probably means it's not an internet phenomenon or meme).  --Hamiltonian 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indications of notability 

message: I've added the references tag because currently the article doesn't have any.  Digging slightly led me to www.stnews.org/News-2555.htm, which seems to define an internet phenomenon as being something featured by notable internet websites.  Is that a fair representation? Hiding  talk 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: so they deleted the hasselhoffed article because it was determined it was a neologism and the creator was using wikipedia to try to start a fad, which of course is not what wikipedia is about.  should we kill its listing here?
Sparsefarce 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Wavy G 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hasselhoffed 

message: Not legitimate.  Sounds like somebody's pissed off at his professor, and taking it out here.  The name returned many search results, but only a few actually dealing with the Purdue professor. There's a few forums where the name is mentioned, as well as some Purdue websites, but nothing to be found that matches the description listed here.  The rest of the search results are legitimate websites about other people with the same name. 
Just letting you know, I'm removing this, in case anybody has a problem with that. Wavy G 00:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bill Crum" 

message: I've cleaned up much of this article to make it read a little better.  I didn't remove any content (except for "Bill Crum") but I combined some redundant entries. Such as: "Websites" listed "Million Dollar Homepage" and "Personal Sites" listed "Alex Tew" (creator of "Million Dollar Homepage"), so I combined them into one entry.  I tried to remove as many sentence fragments as I could.  I think fragments are okay in this sort of article (basically a list of entries with brief descriptions), but if the descriptions could be made into a complete sentence, I went ahead and changed them. Also I fixed a lot of spelling and grammar. Wavy G 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Hamiltonian 03:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: Under Non Celebrities: Zwible (never heard of, no article, just an improperly placed link to facebook, which requires a login); Nathan Braun (has short article that doesn't give any indication this man is a meme. Likely a vanity addition from User:Willyjenks ); Kimbo Slice (article gives barely a reason to consider him a meme)
:Kimbo Slice is notable for those clips of "backyard boxing" that spread around the Internet a year or two ago.  Here: www.sublimedirectory.com/basement/media/kimbo.wmv If not him, then the "Backyard Boxing" itself should be listed under the Videos instead of him. As far as the other two go, I say delete them. I'm all for cleaning up the list as much as possible. Wavy G 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realise when I read this that those other two you mentioned are brand new additions to the list. I went ahead and reverted them.  "Zwible" seems to be just some kid having a bit of fun. The Loyd Braun thing or whatever is apparently real, although what it has to do with Internet phenomena is beyond me.  I reverted them both. Wavy G 03:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove these? 

message: I never heard of him before, but I just read it, and I saw that it was actually entered by himself.  I looked into it, and I have no doubt it is for real, because he's all over the net and apparently the guy even appeared on Jimmy Kimmel.  It just seems interesting that someone makes their own entry on Internet Phenomenon and it really is legit.  Your thoughts? Wavy G 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe adding your own legit entry on this page will become the next hot "internet phenomenon"?  Stranger things ... --Hamiltonian 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't help feeling a bit left out when I saw the page. I was a bit nervous about adding it, but I do believe I can legitimately claim Internet phenomenon status. Oh, and thanks to whoever was nice enough to change the description from my "overweight" to "slightly overweight"...Jay Maynard 01:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "warts and all" description; I like your style (and I don't mean the "Tron" suit, btw). Wavy G 02:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that, if I didn't do it first, someone else would. Besides, it's a legitimate criticism. Jay Maynard 12:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tron Guy".  Interesting... 

message: Please help build policy at: Wikipedia:Notability (memes).  Thank you, --Urthogie 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  policy proposal 

message: I think that video was distributed all over the internet in the early part of this decade.  Shouldn't that be worth a mention? Maplejet 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Daler Mehndi's Tunak Tunak Tun? 

message: Perhaps there should a specific section that lists the websites from which memes often come from as listed in the introduction, e.g. Fark, YTMND, AlbinoBlackSheep, Ebaum's, etc. Thoughts? My little needle 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most things it's extrememly difficult to pinpoint their source of origin. For those which it is know, a note in the description itself will do, no need to create new sections. Elijya 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website section expansion 

message: Most of you have probably seen it; it's a real short video of a dude with an afro trying out at an audition with some very crappy "ninja" moves. It's spread mostly as an animated gif.
I vote yes. This video is older than a year, but probably a good bit more. It is a popular and well-known video that can be seen on eBaums if not anywhere else, but Im sure you can find it easily by searching google or youtube. Mr d00d! 11:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afro Ninja, anyone? 

message: I'm putting this here because it seems like the best place to get it noticed. I'm in the process of creating an Internet Phenomena Wiki (most likely on Wikia unless someone has a better idea). The intent would be to provide a safe haven for articles that tend to get removed for being not important enough for Wikipedia, and at the same time give more in-depth coverage of those that don't than a Wikipedia article would merit. For instance, the deleted list of screamers would get an article (actually more than one -- one for actual screamers and one for other prank Flashes), as would a list of running gags in Animutations and the more popular YTMND memes.
Obviously I can't do this all myself, and more importantly Wikia recommends having a dedicated team before signing up, so I'm recruiting anyone interested. Anyone who likes the idea and thinks they'd have the time to work on such a thing, feel free to reply here or contact me on my own Talk page. Octan out. Octan 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Phenomena Wiki 

message: I'm fairly sure these ads come from Australia, not New Zealand. "Bugger" is a celebrated part of Australian slang. I'm not going in and changing it myself because I don't know for sure where this series of ads originated from. They were certainly shown on TV here in Australia (and caused a little controversy), though. SoulSkorpion 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for "Toyota bugger commercial" turns up bunches of hits, as one would expect - and all of the ones I saw said it was NZ first. Jay Maynard 12:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aired in Australia, but were definitely from New Zealand --- if you read the small print at the bottom of each ad, it said `New Zealand model shown', and were originally aired there. Elric of Grans 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toyota "Bugger" advertisements 

message: I started this one by posting the video on SpikedHumor... I know you don't believe me, but I wish I knew how to watermark videos back then. I got it direct from the gymnast's russian website, so I find it hard to believe that anybody else could have found it. I've always liked viral humor sites, and I never saw this video on any site before I posted it. Here's the original that I uploaded:
www.spikedhumor.com/articles/3961/Flexible_Girl.html 'Flexible Girl' at SpikedHumor.com
Phil Beveridge (Phil-CSF) 14:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flexible Girl 

message: Okkay, I've seen lots of additions and reversions for EBaum's World in the list of sites that phenomena explode on the world from. WTF is going on here? Jay Maynard 00:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering the same thing. It never really mattered one way or another to me until I just noticed it removed again today.  It suddenly occurred to me something funny is going on. Obviously someone has a problem with Ebaum's World, and I know there's some controversy about the site "stealing" things from various other sites and putting its name on them, however, the site is still responsible for popularizing several of the memes listed here. Whether someone thinks it's "fair" or not, Ebaum's World should be left alone. Wavy G 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say "most important", as what you see as most important depends on which site you hang out at. i know people who'd say SomethingAwful, Slasdot, and Fark top the list. Still, it's inarguably there. Jay Maynard 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that was a poor word choice. Mr d00d! 20:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EBaum's World 

message: I'm not sure I'd call it an "ILLEGAL" link. Just because the girl's parents don't want the picture used does not make it any less an Internet phenomenon, and certainly their threats of legal action are not sufficient to make it illegal - only a court can do that.
That said, I note that the page on the girl was deleted by way of a VfD, and adding a mention here could be construed as trying to bypass that vote. I'm not experienced enough around here to know if that's the case or not, but I've seen the argument raised.
There seems to be a good argument for including her, and a good argument for not doing so. I'm inclined to include, on the basis of encyclopedicity (is that a word?), but not strongly enough so that I'll do it without discussion. Jay Maynard 02:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it indeed all over the Internet? If so, how would I go about finding it? Be specific, please. Jay Maynard 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: hey jmaynard, there is tool called google, give it a shot. good luck --87.197.121.250 02:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's why I said "be specific". What should I Google for? Jay Maynard 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  "moshzilla", "moshgirl" --87.197.121.250 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  honestly, just google the god damn thing a see for yourself! --87.197.201.150 03:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How long will this be protected for? There are alot of Internet meme's not on the list which need to be added e.g. www.wherethegoldat.com/. This has been protected because of a dispute with two members, one of which did break the Three Revert Rule, but it's annoying the whole article is protected because of that one member, especially considering the dispute is not article wide and is on one Internet meme only. -- Robhakari 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I count at least three users involved in the edit war: User:Danny Lilithborne, User:87.197.201.150 (+ other IPs from the same ISP) and User:Jmaynard.  And regarding the three-revert rule, the first two clearly violated this (even if you assume the other IPs are different users).  Since it is difficult to block boths sides and treat them equally, I chose to protect the article.  (It is difficult, since only one user is logged in and the other has a changing IP address.)  I will watch the discussion over the next few days, and hopefully will be able to unprotect the article soon.  If there really is something that needs to be added to the article you have two choices right now: add it to the talk page and I (or another admin) can add it to the article or wait until the page is no longer protected.  -- JamesTeterenko 15:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The revert war got out of hand; I apologize for violating policy, and I know it was wrong to do it.  At the time, I didn't feel like I had any other recourse; I felt as though its presence was not legal and might get Wikipedia in trouble.  I lost control when the anonymous user started insulting me.  I can't justify it, though.  I will keep a cooler head next time. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, my participation in the edit war was limited to one reversion to the status quo ante - despite my personal belief that the item should be included. Was this inappropriate? My goal was to try to hold things off until consensus could be reached here. Jay Maynard 15:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit was fine, especially since you were discussing it on the talk page to try to resolve the dispute.  I was just stating that you were involved.  -- JamesTeterenko 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I hope that things have calmed down a bit now.  I will now unprotect the page.  In the event that a user is breaking the 3RR, please post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.  -- JamesTeterenko 03:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moshzilla 

message: I raised it indirectly in the Moshzilla discussion, but I'll raise it again on its own: Does deletion of an article linked from here by AfD (and, it seems, usually for non-notability) warrant deletion of the entry in this article as well? Personally, I don't think so. The standards for notability for this article (assuming that such are necessary, which a quick look through the discussion will show considerable disagreement over) should be lower, IMAO, than the standard for notability for a dedicated article. Remove the resulting redlink, sure, but leave the entry. Jay Maynard 12:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would remove it from the article.  A vote to delete is that the information is not important for an encyclopedia.  A vote to merge means that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, just not as an article on it's own.  Since the merge voted didn't win out, turf the content.  -- JamesTeterenko 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us not forget that this article is nothing more than an article about Internet phenomena and a listing of examples of them. If something listed here has its own article, then so be it, and by all means provide a link. If an article itself is deleted as non-notable, that just means the subject isn't important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, but that doesn't change the fact that the subject is still an Internet phenomenon (if indeed it truly is one). Wavy G 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would disagree that it should be deleted.  Many memes are notable enough for an entry here, but not notable enough for its own article. Surely notability guidelines for a slight mention are lower than notability guidelines for an article, otherwise merges would never happen. --Rory096 01:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree.  Just because an article is deleted (again, see Brian Peppers), doesn't mean it's not a phenomenon.  I would disagree with the recent removing of "The Juggernaut Bitch!" because I have seen that all over the net.  Does it deserve an article?  No, apparently not, which is why the article was deleted.  But that doesn't mean the subject shouldn't have a short mention here.  PS: Forgive me for being skeptical, but you're telling me a video called "Nuts in the Ass, Dick in the Pussy" is a real Internet meme?  I didn't even bother to verify, just based on the name (we get stuff like that a lot). Wavy G 02:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is.  That's actually not the real name of the porn video, but it's mentioned in Tony Eveready and has become notable for its... odd scenarios (to say the least). But I guess that's not surprising when it's called "Ass Dun Wanna Let My Nuts Out." --Rory096 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted article == deleted entry here? 

message: I see no reason to list this one twice. The listing under Videos for Numa Numa Dance should be enough. Anyone disagree? Jay Maynard 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already removed it once.  It appears the same person added it back.  Apparently they didn't read through the article before adding it (it is a long article).  Although I explained on my edit summary the first time I removed it that the Numa Numa dance was already listed (and his name is given in that entry), and anyway, Gary Brolsma redirects to Numa Numa.  This is a very long list, and there's no reason to list anything twice. Wavy G 15:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I removed it the second time. I'm documenting that here in the (possibly vain) hope that the anonymous user who added it twice will see the reasons it keeps getting deleted before adding it again; he obviously doesn't read history pages, so I'm probably whistling in the dark, but hope springs eternal. Jay Maynard 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been finding a lot of duplicates on here lately.  I think the different categories are what throws people.  "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" was added when Dancing banana was already there (same meme), and there's been a few others I've caught in the past.  I just caught some more: Mr. T is listed under celebrities, citing what appears to be those "...Ate My Balls" websites, when the Mr. T Ate My Balls is already on the websites section further down in the article.  Like I said, it is a very long list, and it's doubtful that people are going to read through the whole thing before deciding to add an entry.  We're just going to have to keep an eye out... Wavy G 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is getting too big when it reaches the point that duplicates are not readily obvious. Perhaps a split is in order: an overall article that discusses origin and propagation of phenomena, and a series of articles listing the different types? Jay Maynard 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Brolsma/Numa Numa Dance 

message: If anyone can verify that this line actually appears in the new X-Men movie, please do so.  I removed a recent addition to the "Juggernaut Bitch" entry stating that this line was homaged in the X-Men: The Last Stand.  I went ahead and removed it without verifiying because it sounds very suspicious.  But I may be wrong.  If so, please correct me, but until then, I'm taking it out. Wavy G 11:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, nevermind.  I just read a few reviews of the film and apparently this is for real.  I just assumed it was a prank.  My "bad."  Restoring the deleted movie reference. Wavy G 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I'm the Juggernaut Bitch!" 

message: I understand that eBaum's world must bementioned in the article regarding internet phenomena as it is the largest site regarding internet phenomena, but I have failed to find a single phenomena that originated at eBaum's World. EBaum collects internet phenomena after they are indeed phenomena, or collects them and helps elevate them to phenomenon status, but they most certainly do not originate at eBaum's World. This should be removed. However, since it is controversial I want to know other opinions.
:We're not here to play semantics.  Originated/found/stole--whatever you want to call it, the point is, it's a popular site and a haven of Internet phenomena. Wavy G 14:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence lists places where memes originate, not "havens of Internet phenomena." JayW 20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're missing the focus here.  Ebaum's world is a popular site and thus it is responsible for many of the things showcased there become popular.  Whether the material is originated there or not, it is instrumental in making certain things become phenomena, and that's what the article is concerned with.   Wavy G 04:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were responsible for an image becoming a meme, it would say "Hosted by eBaumsWorld.com" on the bottom. I have never seen anything like that. JayW 18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like Slashdot, if I understand it correctly: little originates there, but stuff that originates elsewhere is popularized by appearing there. That's enough to rate the listing of sites that popularize things. Jay Maynard 19:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phenomena ''originate'' at eBaum's World?

message: The following internet memes seem to be missing from the list if not wikipedia as a whole; any ideas why?
Oldies but goldies:
joesparks.shockwave.com/ Radiskull & Devil Doll
www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/mirror/lobsmag.swf Lobster Magnet
www.oz.net/~will/adventures_of_coin_bird/realcoinbird.html Coin Bird
This one is questionable but everyone I know has seen *and* quoted this for as long as I can remember:
www.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe.html GI Joe clips
:GI Joe PSAs are already listed, if that's what you're talking about.  I've never heard of the other ones that I know of, so I cannot comment.  Love always and forever, Wavy G 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Phenomenon 

message: Does Judson Laipply, specifically the Evolution of Dance, count?  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judson Laipply/Evolution of Dance 

message: Doesn't "butchers Ricky Martin songs" seem a bit biased an unencyclopaedic?
:Yes, it does.  Good call. Wavy G 00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or so I thought...I changed the wording and it was instantly reverted.  Wavy G 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  It was part of a mass revert by the verification police.  Changed back.  Wavy G 02:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Hung 

message: Joe Bermudez's status as a celebrity is certainly debatable. He's an incredibly well-known techno artist but still not a household name by any stretch of the imagination. Should he be celebrity or non-celebrity? VanillaX 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I've never heard of him before reading it here. Although, I checked, and he is all over the net.  However, there appears to be no Wikipedia article on him, so unless you can cite a source verifying his notoriety, I'm afraid he's gone. Wavy G 02:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's definitely more of an internet meme than he is a celebrity, so should we listr him as a celebrity or a non-celebrity on here? VanillaX 19:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say he's more of an internet meme, list him as a non-celebrity.  Chances are if he were a "celebrity," he would have an article.  Wavy G 02:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. VanillaX 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joe Bermudez