Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Romero

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was no consensus. I'm inclined to close this as a keep, but the sight of socks, socks, and sockmania gives me second thoughts on doing so. Mailer Diablo 15:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Romero (investigative reporter)[edit]

Non-Notable internet meme that is restricted to only one website - maybe a mention on the fark article, but not here. God Ω War 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep The meme is spreading throughout the internet, I too have seen Ric's photo in several other places and have had to refer people to the page about him here so they'll quit asking about him elsewhere. MSchlaf
  • Strong Keep I've seen Ric mentioned in other places, and the information here helped me figure out the cliche
  • Strong Keep Is it lonely up there in your tower? Honestly, what harm is being done by having this article here? None. Someone else mentioned that Wiki is often the only source of obscure information. This is one of those pieces. There are many, many other articles here that are more worthless. Oh, and don't bother commenting --- this WILL be my only comment in the discussion. 35.11.160.168 20:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If the article does no harm and is accurate, I find no reason to eliminate a source of information, no matter how trivial. Hell, Conrad Hubbard is even less famous and less of a celebrity and he gets his own page... God Ω War 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't see anyone arguing how this fits the profiles for topics to be deleted.
  • Strong Keep This is a meme that many people are aware of. I know that the only way I had the meme explained to me was looking for it here. Given the usefulness of this article, it should not be deleted. JagSeal 12:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Ric Romero is mentioned a lot. People come to WP for lots of online information. Without this article people coming across Ric Romero would be confused. Fatalserpent 15:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep More than meets standards for inclusion. Ken Mondschein
  • Strong Keep Granted he may not be my cup of tea, but he does pass tests of notablity. He's a TV reporter.  : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 01:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note this users only contributions have been his user page and afd nominations. See [1]--God Ω War 01:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's a celeb on the Internet. Keep the article going on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.87.179 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep. No less notable than any other individual listed on Internet phenomenon that have their own article. As memes go, it's spread pretty far beyond Fark, so it's notable enough. Fluit 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read FARK and remember the first Ric Romero topic. Yes, he's been mentioned a few times since then, but it's a pretty minor meme even within FARK and absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything outside FARK. If there were a WP:MEME standard, I think it's safe to say this wouldn't pass it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; I'm kind of torn on this one. The internet angle doesn't sway me, since it isn't discussed by any reliable sources. The guy is on KABC-TV, which is pretty notable as local stations go, but no one else below anchor level has an article... and again, no independent reliable sources on that either. When Fark gets a wiki, we can send this in their direction. Melchoir 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; he's as big an internet celebrity as anyone else who has his own page. --Aemilia 04:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Melchoir. Jkelly 04:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable even without fark cliche status... with it, extremely notable. 69.142.21.24 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep He's well-known in his broadcast area, and he pops up on fark.com probably once a week, giving him world-wide exposure. -- stubblyhead | T/c 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Get off your high horse— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.117.160 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Los Angeles is the largest television market in the country. T K E 05:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Not all that notable but I find myself seeing multiple people looking for this information and needing it. If not that I would consider a merge to KBAC if nothing esle. SorryGuy 06:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Objectivist-C 06:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete savidan(talk) (e@) 08:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Like Ric Romero said "Anyone with a computer can become their own publisher on the internet." While he was refering to blogging, WP is a type of encyclopedia. WP may not be a blog, but it did however state the facts of Ric Romero. It told of his early years up to the point that he became a cliché. I'm certain there are more sites than this one that state the same facts as WP and I feel that deleting this would prove nothing. WP has only published the facts of Ric Romero. It isn't the writer's opinion that he is a cliché. It is only a statement that reveals the truth and reveals the reason of his internet popularity. IMO, the only thing hurting the fact that he is refered as a cliché is the popularity of WP. It won't go unnoticed if it's deleted. Society will still refer to him as a cliché.--Ellis d 09:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, this is the users only contribution to wikipedia. See [2].
  • Weak Delete He is slightly notable, however we can't be listing every little internet fad in the Wiki.Landeyda 10:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If FARK wants to have an explanation of every little FARK fad, they can put it on their own website. Average Earthman 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --Terence Ong 11:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is both an internet and TV celebrity, what more is there to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:N. Ansell 13:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep he's almost notable enough, but I think the fark cliche tips the scale a little. Kotepho 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable consumer reporter for KABC-TV. He has an entry on IMDB, and between his record of consumer reporting and his discovery of blogging, the article is worth keeping. --Elkman - (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Every TV station in North America has a consumer reporter, who typically gets about two minutes of screen time per newscast. So? RGTraynor 15:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is already a list of FARK cliches on the main FARK page, so let's keep this there. --Several Times 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the article is GFDL'd it can certainly be moved to Farkopedia by those who are so eager to keep this alive. NTK 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable. Cynical 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FARK appearance does not a celebrity make. And certainly being an on-air consumer reporter for a local TV station doesn't. Fishhead64 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per users voting keep -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In other news, Fark is a website that can have links posted to it! More at 11.  RasputinAXP  c 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletedeletedelete per above. The sockpuppetry still amazes me.--Frenchman113 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ordinary local TV-news reporter? Not notable. Meme found on one website? Not notable. Combining the two doesn't increase the notability value. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even when discounting the Fark portions of the article, he's still more notable/recognizable than many of the other bios on Wikipedia. HiFiGuy 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If other internet cliches are worthy of their own entries, I don't see why this one is an issue. The fact that he's a local television personality doesn't matter; Wikipedia doesn't prioritize based on fame. Imdwalrus 05:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a thin line between fame and notability. Ansell 06:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Farkcruft. If we allow Fark to be a measure of notability, we'll need several more servers to store all the crap. And I say this as someone who likes Fark. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. If you've been noted, you're notable. The collected whining about "cruft" from those who don't like an inclusive Wikipedia takes up more server space than any amount of material about Fark ever will. Grace Note 00:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is the kind of information Wikipedia should have. bbx 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes the standard for notability as a consumer reporter reaching millions weekly. Have any of you deleters ever read WP:bio ? Pepeeg 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, And I quote from WP:BIO as a reason for someone to be considered notable: "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following". Michaelwsherman 07:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep, there are articles for far more obscure people and topics. Besides, an internet meme should pass the notability requirements. mikemoto 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep There's so much worthless crap on WP, about "celebrities", "famous" places, and local politics, I don't see why Ric Romero shouldn't have his own article. Kar98 13:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than notable enough for an article, even before the FARK notoriety. Unfocused 13:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep we all know who we're talking about, that makes him notable, and worthy of an article on wikipedia Asw32 13:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't really see how Ric Romero's status on Fark or irrelevance elsewhere matters. I heard about this guy, I looked it up on wikipedia, and I learned what the story was. Seems like that's exactly what Wikipedia is for. And I'd wager this particular listing gets accessed way, way more often than more "legitimate" sources.
  • Delete merge infto into Fark not enuff info here on its own, not notable except as fark cliche.
  • Strong Keep It's for articles like this that I love wikipedia!
  • Keep Helpful article
  • Keep Might be farkcruft, but as far as Internet memes go in general, I think this has as large an audience and as large an interest base as everything short of the biggest of them. I tend to judge the scale of memes and thus their cultural relevance on the basis of audience size, and I think the biggest fark meme in history passes that test --Yst 13:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly notable internet meme. —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Due to his work as a TV presenter. RicDod 13:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's useful to have a reference that defines this internet meme. If Flying Spaghetti Monster has a page, so should RR. Brian a lee 13:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did not know who Ric Romero was but I kept seeing his name about the 'net and when I Googled for his name Wikipedia had the correct answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.199.183 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Memes that have been significantly used in communication are important to archive so as to preserve the readability of old material in a way accessible by the common man. Communication shouldn't have a shelf life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.245.228 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: Anon user's only contribution is to this discussion. Fourohfour 14:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on local radio and television stations and the like; until we agree to delete all of them or create a specific standard regarding them, we should not simply delete those that come to Wikipedians' attentions. Ric Romero's status as the focus of a minor internet phenomenon simply adds to the validity of the article. --Frostyservant 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I think Ric Romero might as well have a Wikipedia with its main focus being on his job and life and a sidenote how he became popular on the internet. There are plenty of obscure stub articles out there that seem ridiculous. But then, I agree that if you keep this page, it could mean people making the argument that a Jameth page is justified. I disagree that there "isn't enough here to justify an article." There's much less elsewhere and there are no discussion deletions for them. (I actually contribute to Wiki. Fear not.) Vaguely 13:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is no penalty for having too much information in an encyclopedia. Avengerx 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Ric Romero is clearly encyclopediac. Love, Wikipedian with 3000 edits. -James Howard (talk/web) 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - i seriously think the legacy of ric romero will live on through our children's children and would not be surprised if "pulling a ric romero" injected itself into the vernacular. i vote keep! Ytcracker 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, There are entries for other talent at KABC-TV that are much less well known than Ric, including Danny Romero and Marc Brown. Not to mention plenty of entries for other "local celebs" who have gained attention.Sparkhead 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep' - a liberal inclusion policy is what has made Wikipedia successful. Internet memes probably rate a Wikipedia or their own. Include link to "Captain Obvious" page (or delete it too and help turn Wikipedia into pap). ACzernek 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, The article itself is notable as well as the person. He deserves the same status as any other internet phenomenon considering that it refers to an actual person unlike say the HA HA guy. I recommend this article be kept.--NegroSuave 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I dislike (if not hate) much fancruft, but Romero is a presenter (perhaps not the most prominent, but...) at what appears to be a major TV station, probably justifying a page on that basis alone. Also, from what I can tell, he seems to be one of the more prominent and long-lived Fark cliches. Put it another way; if Romero doesn't belong here, fair enough, but there are a *lot* of articles with much weaker cases. Let's keep standards consistent. Fourohfour 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is the purpose of wikipedia. To look up and learn about stuff on the interwebs. Liu Bei 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- but paraphrase the fark reference to a single sentence. Autopilots 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You deletionists keep going too far. The very fact that an internet message board or word of mouth could inspire people to come and try to fight for the life of this article should be indication enough that you have, ONCE AGAIN, overstepped your bounds. Stop deleting things that you don't care about. Just ignore them like the rest of us. Joey 14:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; it's on the front page of Fark, so that's hardly surprising. There are quite a few first-time comments from people here. And yeah, I voted "keep", but the point of this discussion is to get a cross-section of Wikipedia opinion, not a cross-section of those more likely to be in favour. Fourohfour 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While this is my first post to WikiPedia, I have read the deletion policy. It appears that even were Ric Romero not a meme he conforms the rules for WP:BIO notability of a live person standards. Regardless, the standards seems to indicate that this information, rather than being deleted, should be merged into articles for Fark and KABC (yet another reason not to delete as a single article linked from two sources seems to make more sense) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.17.224 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. A notable internet phenomenon. Jokestress 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- c.f. Marvin Zindler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.241.182 (talk • contribs) .
  • Weak keep as per Michaelwsherman. ... discospinster 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per autopilots. User:Vanis314 3:37 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If notable enought to be considered an internet meme, he is notable to have his own bio. WegianWarrior 14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's a minor celebrity in the LA area, and somehow people around the country (and probably world) know him a la fark. Wouldn't this suffice for validation for a wiki article? SIMJewWiki 15:56, 15 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that we're having this debate shows his significance. And if the Star Wars kid and flying spaghetti monster can have articles, so can Ric. (Yes, I don't post much on Wikipedia, but I contribute on Wookieepedia and the LotR Wiki. Duke Starhopper 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) EDIT And may I ask, what is the significance of this being on the main page of Fark? Duke Starhopper 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you mean my comment, Romero is a Fark meme, and more likely to get the attention of people coming here (solely) to vote in favour. Put it another way, if we were discussing the removal of some Pokemon fancruft and it was posted on the front page of a high-traffic "Pokemon Fancruft Fans" site, it's unlikely that the views posted would be an entirely representative cross-section of opinion. That having been said, I still voted for "keep"... Fourohfour 15:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fark itself is notable, God knows ABC is notable, other clichés like Zero Wing are notable, and Ric's fame has come to extend beyond Fark, to most internet forums. Twin Bird 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But the greenlighters of Fark are doing a really shitty job for this to be on their main page. - Hahnchen 15:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what ye please. I came here to find out what's up with these pictures on Fark. That's what Wikipedia was made for. But I guess an article about SuperGoku45z Message Board Layout Redesign of 2004 would be mildly silly, although his users might refer to it frequently. On the still other hand, why not? What harm would it do to put all the world's information in an encyclopedia that wants to contain all the world's information? Should it be really useful to everyone or usually useful to the vast majority of people? EDIT: On further reflection, I want to clarify. I'm not saying that every single piece of data on Earth should be in Wikipedia. But a persistent cliche, even if it's limited to one site, is big enough for someone (namely me) to think of looking for it on Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.187.9 (talk•contribs) .
    • Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First the Wikipedia editors came for All Your Base, and you didn't speak out, because AYB was annoying as fuck, then they came for Ric Romero, and you did nothing because the meme seemed played out. But soon the Wikipedia editors will come for YOU, and there will be no one left to speak out for you. Fight Nazism on the World Wide Web. Rev Martin Niemoller. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.65.17.45 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP it. Ric Romero is the 21st century's Captain Obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.219.77.64 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 15:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how much extra data space is the entry taking up. 1KB?
    • Weak delete Who will know or care about the internet meme of Ric Romero in 5-10 years?
  • Strong Keep It is obvious that Ric is notable, regardless of wether or no there are "verifiable sources". Gsham 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep, Ric Romero is the 21st century's Captain Obvious. Besides, raise up a dude who isn't at the front desk on TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.77.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Obvious Keep in spite of sock-puppetry. An internet meme for sure but also a genuine TV person and collumnist in teh interweb. We keep far less notable things than him. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's a real reporter, and the meme bit is just one paragraph. It's useful for Wikipedia to explain the background behind these things, so that people not in the know can find out where they came from and what they mean. See O RLY?, for example. --Jake 16:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A reporter who coverers the los angeles area is notable enough for inclusison.. mcwiggin 16:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Frequently mentioned on very popular website. Not an O RLY-level meme, but still pretty darn notable. 209.6.230.71 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not being liked by all doesn't make it a candidate for deletion. The person is well known, and is a reporter for a TV station. Rborek 16:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - --ZekeMacNeil 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable television personality. AdamJacobMuller 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough has been made of him that people might be curious as to why. Why force them to go elsewhere instead of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.207.148 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-15 11:54:43
  • Keep He's a tv reporter, which makes him notable enough. (EG, see Natalie Jacobson.) Remove the meme section if the proposed meme guidelines become policy (since Romero is neither a "classic" meme nor does it satisfy any of the other inclusion criteria).--Wasabe3543 17:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ric Romero is a tv personality in LA, a considerably large market. His basic information should be left in, as there are many people of the same or less notability who still warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Perhaps this discussion should be centered on whether or not to keep the "fark.com" references in, as that portion appears to be an inside joke among users of only one website. However, it is setting a frightening president of censorship if the non-disputed facts concerning a tv personality are deleted because of prejudice against a website like "fark.com" that has adopted him as a mascot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gallup (talk • contribs) .
  • KEEP - fourohfour needs to relax. If Ric Romero goes, then the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" page should go as well. I don't read fark at all, but still found the article to be interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.248.229 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Oh, and if you'd bothered checking my vote, you'd see I've already voted "keep". However, I want to see this AfD carried out properly, and not unbalanced by newcomers coming solely to sway the vote (either intentionally or unintentionally). Fourohfour 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's a TV personality which makes him notable. He may not be an important person (opinion) but the fact is that his name gets thrown around all over, so people will end up here looking for information on him. I don't think we need a full-blown biography and family history, but a few tidbits of info and his picture (and why he's so often mentioned) would suffice. I don't know the guy, and it doesn't look like I'd like him, but I think for the purpose of spreading knowledge [of any kind] it should stay. Ghostalker 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Isn't it enough that people would be curious as to what this person/meme signifies, and will come here for the answer? RP. 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To quote somebody above, "If we allow Fark to be a measure of notability, we'll need several more servers to store all the crap.". I say this as somebody who reads fark daily. Thewalrus 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As someone else said, the fact that we're arguing over this surely means this article should stay by default. Besides, this is censorship from people who can't take a joke, which is on one level what this is and another is the fact that this is a real person. If we're going to be completely anal about what constitutes a valid article, we should delete every article about fictional characters and dead people. Because, hey, they're not relevant anymore! 17:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The measure of an article ought to be its potential usefulness to readers. People are bound to wonder who Ric Romero is; this article helps. We've also kept Internet memes of similar notability before. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No one would be complaining about an article on a TV reporter if he WASN'T an internet meme. This is like deleting Snakes on a Plane because it's an internet fad. He's notable for being an L.A. reporter in his own right, and the fact that many people have heard of him outside that station makes him more notable, not less. In addition, I don't have an objection to using Wikipedia to document memes in the first place, but that's another story.--BigCow 17:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- This is a second comment but I wanted to add several points. First, in my job as a researcher for one of the Big Four search engines, memes like this become popular page hits due to news stories or even Saturday Night Live. Wikipedia would be my first stop, if I were trying to evaluate a search for 'Ric Romero Obvious'. It is most authoritative, has the largest number of editors and is the most-likely to have the underground/cultural interpretation. Second, my Wikipedia sweatshirt says "Edit this page" and it comes closest to the spirit of Wikipedia, not "Delete this page". But maybe someone sent me the wrong sweatshirt. Third, being an Internet resource edited by Internet users is what defines Wikipedia -- this is not a resource edited by perfesseurs for the hoi polloi, as is Encyclopedia Britannica. That editors even believe this is Romero/meme page is an issue is an indication that they neither understand the users nor the donors to this site. ACzernek
  • Strong Keep This article allowed me to be in on the joke. How is that a bad thing? - EndingPop 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Would be useful to enough users (Farkers or not) to justify inclusion in WP. — Hedgey42 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Although Ric Romero is famous on fark.com, it does not mean his is worthy of a biographical article. I'm famous to people who know me, but that doesn't justify my own bio. Might be the only resource for Ric Romero, but does not make it needed. If we needed a page for every inside joke, wikipedia would never survive. --PaddyM 18:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Although Ric Romero has been an internet meme for a short time, you can't justify it's deletion because he's not as popular as Ha Ha Guy or the Icy Hot Stuntaz, both of which have articles on Wiki. Unless you plan on deleting all internet memes, it's better that the article be retained. Oftentimes Wiki is the only source for finding out information on very obscure subjects. Also, as a Wiki donor, this is not what I like to see happening on the site. Sorry... just sayin. - guriboy 19:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This comment (and its edit) are user's first two contributions to Wikipedia. They have one other contribution to date. Fourohfour 11:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This internet meme is known outside of fark.com. He's also an anchor on a reasonably high popularity TV station. Also note that the page is not only about the meme.--Toba 19:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Amusingly I used this the other day to figure out what the hell this Ric Romero deal was and WP had great info! (for admin: I have 1000+ edits) -Ravedave 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into either Fark.com's article or Internet phenomenon. Inky 19:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainstream idioms often start out as subculture slang. Ric Romero may be a fark cliche now, but I've seen other fark-isms (such as the word "moran") appear outside of fark. The most authentic documentation of such things is created while they are still new and is worth preserving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.16.41.4 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: This is user's one and only Wikipedia contribution. Fourohfour 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed silly little comment. 35.11.160.168 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - Ric Romero IS a known television personality in Los Angeles, so at the very least he should have his own Wikipedia article. However, I dunno if the Fark.com stuff is relevent, unless he's in on the joke too. Maybe if more about Ric's personal information and other non-Fark.com sources were added, the Fark.com stuff can remain? ... Something else to consider: Just because Fark.com is a web community, it doesn't mean anything that only Fark.com users would know shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I mean, how many farkers are out there versus any community of people (including nation states, towns, cities, etc), and how much more is known about smaller communities of people and not about Fark? Is some Turkey Festival that gathers 10,000 people in Bugfart, Wisconsin more important than a Fark cliche where 100,000 people are in on the joke? - Nick15 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with immediate relisting; sprotect the AfD discussion. There is no possible way to draw a meaningful consensus from this discussion. Haikupoet 21:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP the article. It does not matter if we like it, but the guy is better known in the world today than a lot of Roman Emperors. Not really right, but more people want to about this guy than of most current political leaders. --Dave 21:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP please. The guy is a TV personality who also contributes news articles online - the fact that he also has a 'fark' status is another reason FOR inclusion, since that differentiates him from other news personalities. --Chronomorte 22:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I agree with guy above. He's obviously notable. Look at all the responses. I'm abivilant toward Fark, but it seems the 'Delete' folk have a bone to pick with them. --Shinto 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP As a news anchor for a major market TV station, he's notable. I mean, he's no John Chancellor or even Tom Skilling, but he's notable regardless of his FARK meme. --SeanO
  • Keep. Good luck keeping track of who is or isn't a sock. Forget the Fark nonsense, he's a notable TV personality in a large market. Gamaliel 01:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a meme. You want to define Ric Romero? Fine, go to Urbandictionary. Keep Wikipedia clean. --Aresef 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clean? What a ridiculous adjective for an encyclopedia to strive for. I think the word we should be trying to get is 'inclusive' or even, dare I say, 'accurate'. Joey 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This voting needs more sock puppets. kthxbye— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.251.192 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Come on. If it weren't for guys like him, the internet would be boring! He's becoming a legend in his own mind and his entry here reaffirms that fact! I'm all for it and I think we should keep interesting tidbits like this alive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.31.1 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2006
  • Keep. With or without Fark (and I truly feel sorry for the administrator lucky enough to preside over this AFD), this figure meets the WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I saw the Ric Romero references on FARK. Not knowing who he was - and thinking asking on FARK would be tedius waiting for the next Ric article to be greenlighted - I went to Wikipedia. Finding his article was a real help to me, and Wikipedia did its job (and still does). Keep it. Dor 04:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Try and find Ric Romero NOT on any fark discussion thread. I never even knew who he was until I check out the Wikipedia article, and why they always quote him the way they do. How could I possibly know, being a Canadian and all? Solarisworld
    • Comment; above comment is user/account's first edit. Fourohfour 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's not make Wikipedia an UrbanDictionary, or a place for people to store their inside jokes. Just you can put anything in Wikipedia doesn't mean you should. justdweezil
  • Weak Keep. It's nice to be able to figure out what random memes mean, and it's otherwise Mostly Harmless, even though it's not very deep. billstewart
    • ULTIMATE KEEP Just because ya'll can't use anything besides Google to justify an article's existence doesn't mean it is not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankencow (talk • contribs)
      • BTW, why did someone delete the interenet reference that I found to Ric Romero? That was NOT my personal website nor for commercial purposes like the note I was sent claimed it was. I FOUND that site just by searching for it. Thought it might make it more "notable".
  • keep please the person is important erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 06:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The pro-deleters are not being consistent. Take this page for example: Shefali Oza. The only way you're ever going to have heard of her is if you watch the weather forecasts on the BBC West Midlands local news. Yet she has an entry and there is no clamour for deletion. If Ric didn't have a Fark meme associated with him then I doubt that there would be any objection to a page about him. And yes, I posted the same comment on Fark: bite me.
  • Strong keep. Aside from the information about the meme (which falls under the criteria for delete per the ruling on Webcest, despite my strong opposition to said ruling), the article contains information about a person with a reasonable amount of fame in his community. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have heard of him, either through the Internet or on the air, and keeping this page intact provides them with a resource to learn more about him. (Disclaimer: I did follow the link from Fark, but this is not my only contribution and I wouldn't have voted if I hadn't already contributed to Wikipedia. I'm not a fan of the meme, but I strongly disagree with the exclusionist philosophy that automatically dismisses memes as non-notable- especially when good and otherwise noteworthy information is deleted as well).24.188.143.81 08:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn internet-meme, sophomoric website forum in-joke, but not an encyclopedic topic. Since this will fail AfD this time around, bring it back in July and hopefully the sockpuppetry will be gone and it can be deleted then. Eusebeus 14:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that's a wonderful point of view to take. "Let's just relist it later when people aren't paying attention. Then we can just claim that all these interested participants were just sock-puppets rather than people who actually have too little time to watch 27,000 articles to make sure that things are kept the way consensus wanted them to be in the first place. As has been stated elsewhere, there are plenty of local news celebrities that have wikipedia articles - the only reason you are against this one is because the fact that he has gained MORE notoriety than other people because he's associated with an internet meme. Calling it sophomoric just displays YOUR OWN bias, and aren't we supposed to divorce ourselves from anything that makes us autonomous while we are Wiki-drones? I will applaud the day the deletionists begin following their own rules. Joey 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. "Notable even without fark cliche status... with it, extremely notable." Agreed. My little needle 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I can think of way less notable stuff that is somehow considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. See Naked and petrified. DaveWF 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I use Wikipedia regularly, and much of what I use it for is to find out what an inside joke is referring to. I suspect that many others use this site for the same reason. If this was an inside joke on a much smaller forum, like "Option J" on Baseball Think Factory", I would be in favor of deletion -- particularly because BTF has its own wiki, but FARK is a massively popular site, and consequently I would expect that there would be a high level of interest in knowing the backstory of an in-joke. DLMahnken 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Even without the Fark.com references, Mr. Romero is someone is someone seen regularily by millions. And if his article is to go, then a significant fraction of Wikipedia needs to follow him into deletion. There are certainly articles on memes that don't have any non-Internet fame. Heck, WP has articles on minor aspects of minor past TV shows. And besides, it was usually to find out what all the Romero references were. Though I will grant that if his fame was completely limited to Fark WP's mention of Romero should have been limited WP article(s) about Fark. But as I said, that is not the case. MichaelSH 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He is a reporter in the United States' second largest television market. Might as well keep him even without the Fark.com reference. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I don't see why not. If he's famous enough to have a television spot, why is he not famous enough to be on Wikipedia? Just trim the section about the Fark cliché. Snakeyeswin 23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; above comment is the first edit from user/account. Fourohfour 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Naconkantari e|t||c|m 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral JordanLund 04:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) It's simple enough to monitor bandwidth and hits. If the page is generating sufficient interest and hits are up then it doesn't matter if it's a Fark generated Internet Meme or not. Enough people are interested in the page to keep it around. If the hits drop off then delete it under a "not enough readership" reason. If it's truly limited to Fark traffic and everyone on Fark already knows who Ric Romero is then it won't generate enough traffic to keep.[reply]
    • Comment; above comment is the first edit from user/account. Fourohfour 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. VegaDark 05:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a regular television personality i'd have to say he barely squeeks by WP:BIO... the fact he's also go t a rather large meme following on fark doesnt hurt either.  ALKIVAR™ 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I remember splitting Ric off from the Fark.com entry because there seemed to be need (and public interest in him) to separate his bio content and his FARK notoriety into a separate entry, away from the FARK page clutter. As long as the content in Ric's entry is factual and verifiable (and not too opinionated), it certainly meets the content guidelines for a separate entry and therefore should be kept. Surely more meat and potatoes content should be added, making the Fark stuff less prominent / more trimmable, but I don't have that knowledge me-self.
  • Keep He had his 15 minutes fame so more than 10 people know him. The wiki article is weak though (poorly written and has a lot of useless cross links like "october"). Keep it and have it cleaned up --Roy-SAC 08:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precedent: God Kills a kitten, meets criteria for WP:BIO and proposed Wikipedia:Notability (memes). --Jabrwocky7 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For reasons noted above. --Myrkabah 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 141.211.4.29 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The above comment is the 13th edit from that IP address. 141.211.4.29 01:21, 18 April 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ric_Romero&oldid=1192073519"