so? it's used on 4chan as well.Ĭockmongler - A /b/ creation. Now, can we drop the whole business already? Flame me by clicking the edit button and adding ** before your post below mine, not clearing the page.

Word filters - Not a meme, as stated in the article.

This is Gabe's theory without the special language.

Kill it with fire - Not a 4chan creation, or exclusive by any means.

An infamous phrase, perhaps it could be sent to the Macross article?

SPIKE DIES - Might be notable by some streach, as it has spread a little outside of 4chan, I think.

It's also featured in a flash that shows some of the more absurd special moves for the characters in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure for the Dreamcast.

Wryyyy is from the Manga of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.

WRYYYYYYYY - WHAT DOES THIS MEAN ?!?!?!?!!? IS DRIVING ME INSANE ! SOMEONE TELL ME ! ! >_<.

Let's look at the memes one by one, shall we? So, notablity is not established, for one. The memes are often only part of the /b/ board, a part of this small part of the great big internet. Let's look at this rationally: 4chan is a very small part of the internet. The following discussion has been closed. gb 03:52, (UTC)Īrchived list of memes with no sources - Enric Naval ( talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) It might be a pain to maintain but so are any number of pages (looks like the GNAA page survived another vote for deletion), is that a good reason to get rid of an article? If the George Bush page gets vandalized a lot should it be removed? And although there are memes which are debatable, there are some which are universally agreed upon. If you ask me, I don't think Babylon 5 is popular or useful enough to warrant 200 pages or whatever ( ), but you don't see me trimming them down. I guess I just don't see the NPOVness of excluding something because it's 'not popular enough' or 'not very useful'. 4chan just doesn't need an entire article to itself, most on the relavent info has been merged here anyway. See the milhouse arguements for an example. When it is incorperated into the imageboard article, it keeps down the meme information, most of which was useless and very PoV on what 'was a meme' or 'was not a meme'. To answer your question, Gb, the $chan article was not very useful and a pain to maintain. This might be a dumb question, but i'm a wikipedia n00b: is there any way i can access the history for the old 4chan article(s)? i still don't understand why people felt it needed to be truncated and shoved into this article. Someone could try wikicities with a good proposal.

I'm wondering if this would merit it's own wiki, listing various imageboards and their respective histories and cultures.

You shouldnt share thread archive 4chan