Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolrus (3rd nomination)

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 redirect to lolcat. kurykh 05:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lolrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Uncategorized, unfocused, no real sources about the actual meme, just blogs and Urban dictionary. Was previously redirected to Lolcat which I think is a lousy idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, while I seem to recall its had some kind of mention in the Time Magazine article on LOLcats (which I don't have a link to and can't verify at the moment, if anyone else can link it, please do just so I know I'm not going crazy), its just not significant enough on its own to warrant its own entry. So I'm thinking a redirect to either lolcat, meme, or image macro, with a few sentences in whichever article covering it. And if necessary, is it possible to salt a redirect so we don't have to go through this again? (Unless of course, somehow the lolrus manages to get enough notability to earn a real article that is). And at least I didn't make the "NOOO they be stealin my redirect!" joke... Until now. Sorry. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Coment These searches [1], [2], [3] seem to show notability may be out there. Have not had time to dig. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to lolcat, else delete. Nothing here to build an article around, but redirects are cheap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Late time the article was nominated for deletion, the decition was "merge", which was never done. Contents was not moved to lolcat article (or was removed from that article), actually poor lolrus was not even mentioned at lolcat article. Plus the meme was still popular years after it appeared. That's why I restored the article. "Uncategorized" is the problem that can (and will) be solved in few minutes. Unfocused? Sorry, I don't quite get it, can you please explain what do you mean? "No real sources" probably means "no reliable sources", and is the only real problem about the article I can think about. I'll work on finding reliable sources and adding them to the article... And please note that the fact that a certain image macro was published at ICHC on a certian date is definitly a source good enough for this article. Netrat (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to lolcat, else delete - no reliable sources does matter a bit.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:08, 12 October 2008 (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.