Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Uprising

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 delete. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Uprising

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - This phrase wasn't known widely prior to the recent Oregon shooting. There are also no solid sources linked to this page.Abc2VE (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Not notable beyond one incident, and not an actual social phenomenon. At most it should be included into
Umpqua Community College shooting Lukys (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

A single mention on the BBC site doesn't make a meme a 'thing'. EamonnPKeane (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EamonnPKeane: maybe not, but 5500 mentions on the /r9k/ board in the year before the UCC shooting should merit some attention. --71.179.209.137 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable secondary sources: e.g. this, this and this. --
computer 19:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Your examples of "significant coverage" are quite simply just newspapers quoting a phrase used in the ramblings of a deranged madman. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

computer 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. The meme doesn't come from BBC; I'm not sure if it comes from 4chan but they are known for promoting it. See [1] for another mention (there are a number of articles about this 'threat', though there is no actual mention of violence).

I think that the concept is actually relatively interesting - it's not really just trollery. The claim is that sexual liberation has created a situation of de facto polygamy, where some "alphas" are absorbing all women's affections, leaving the "betas" desperate. And in truth, there is a certain level of natural polygamy among humans - you can look at the difference in sizes of the sexes, plot that on a curve of harem size in various species, and calculate that human men 'biologically' tend to have a harem size of something like 1.3, if I remember right. And of course species with harems are always subject to violence to control them. So we're really seeing a sort of reverse engineering of the Christian ethic; it's possible that you have to give someone, likely Jesus himself, credit for (at least) thinking up a way to make society less violent - it makes us reflect that perhaps we ripped apart some pretty elaborate social technology without really understanding what it was for.

I think the term has a reasonable number of sources behind it; whether they are in depth enough and reliable enough is debatable, but I think it is productive to let this one stay and try to organize the information for a while. It won't hurt the encyclopedia to have this. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as "speedy delete", but per a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 3 that closure is undone and the discussion is relisted. See there for additional discussion and also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels. Sandstein 10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Enough reliable sources available to make this a notable meme.
Umpqua Community College shooting article. ABF99 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to draft/incubation: Though the number and quality of sources have improved since the original nomination and deletion, it's still thin gruel. I think there's merit in the argument that some (incl. SV and Viriditas, IIRC) made, that the article would lead coverage/spread rumours. Making the draft less visible would also cut down on the number of vandals dropping by. Darth Viller (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - The limited sourcing stresses this as a phrase used on 4chan. This doesn't seem to warrant a stand alone article but per sources the phrase "beta uprising" perhaps warrants a brief section on the 4chan article under the "Threats of violence" section.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BoboMeowCat: See this incident, where "Beta Uprising" is described by the Washington Post to explain a written threat on a bathroom wall that was cited as reason for a shutdown of Eastern Kentucky University. (The relation may be questionable, but that was The Post's decision) Wnt (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeahbut the source provided regarding the Eastern Kentucky University threat scribbled on bathroom stall also mentions "beta uprising" as a thing from 4chan. Every source referenced mentioning phrase "beta uprising" links it to 4chan. The 4chan article already has a "Threats of violence" section [2] and it seems this is where topic currently belongs given the sourcing.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BoboMeowCat: What do you think of tucking it away as a draft? Darth Viller (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No actual link between a chan and an actual shooting has been verified, and most news outlets have never uttered the term "Beta Uprising" even when talking about the chan post. Most of this article's content is talking about how the beta uprising isn't even real. --TheTruthiness (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have a page for every single 4chan meme, and none of the refs actually focus on it in any depth -- an offhand mention in a few places isn't enough to establish notability or to support an article here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not 'knowyourmeme'. Also it started as a hoax to get the 'reliable sources' to name the wrong person as the shooter before the real name was known. It was successful and the reliable sources have corrected their information on that. It could be considered a hoax in that respect that is now a joke. This article would be more at home on ED than on Wiki. Also why is this 'Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions' when it's merely a group of people having a lark at the expense of you and journalism. FlossumPossum (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. GamerPro64 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article and
Incels both cover very similar areas. I believe they should be Merged together if either one of is kept. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I am convinced by BoboMeowCat's argument. If the 'pedia deals with this at all, it should be within the 4chan article. Just not enough (and specific/in-depth enough) coverage to justify a separate article. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge per BoboMeowCat. I think this article doesn't have enough individual notability beyond one or two sources, and thus deserves to be merged with the 4chan article. --146.203.126.109 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
✈ 01:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Most of the sources provided here don't provide in-depth significant coverage of the article subject. They simply mention or reference it when discussing its main topic. Notability is not temporary, and I agree that this is indicative of temporary notability and per the discussion held above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just a 4chan meme and there is no real evidence it is any kind of actual social event or organization.stufff (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet again I'm brought here because people are linking to this article from off-site and laughing at how idiotic Wikipedia is becoming. That there even has to be a discussion about whether this article should be deleted or not should be a matter of personal embarrassment to some. This "beta uprising" thing is a troll. The fact that mainstream news organizations reported on it should not warrant an article on this; rather, it should cause you to question how reliable these jokers really are. Seriously, go read the citations, it's all stories which use anonymous board posts as some sort of evidence of a greater movement causing violent crimes. If this ever changes, if a "beta uprising" movement ever forms to commit acts of violence against society, then it might warrant an article. Until then, I'd like to remind you of
WP:DNFTT. Forcing a discussion for the deletion of this idiocy is going to encourage more trolls to pull similar stunts in the future. Akesgeroth (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

DNFTT should apply equally to commercial interests, like the various reality-TV families who receive lavish coverage here. Which is to say, it shouldn't apply at all. If we can cover something with reliable sources, we should cover it. If Wikipedia coverage encourages people to go out and be creative online, or frightens them into silence because they see FBI and MIsomething investigating 4chan, either way that's none of our concern. Our concern is just to cover the facts. Wnt (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should note that
WP:CANVASS applies here. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, non-sequiturs and threats. Really convincing words there. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rule 1 and 2. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For anyone unaware of the situation, 4chan contributors pride themselves on trolling and contestants get extra points for fooling gullible media into mentioning one of their made-up jokes. It's good that sites like 4chan exist because they help to alert people that you shouldn't believe everything you read, particularly on the internet, however Wikipedia should not participate in that noble aim. There is no evidence of notability, and in a month even the 4chan crowd will have forgotten about this joke. The media have to fill space 24×7 so it is not surprising that they occasionally publish junk, but a couple of mentions do not satisfy
WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I am almost speechless. Surely this Wikipedia article is intended as a joke. Since when did Wikipedia merge with the Urban Dictionary to include any obscure, bizarre made-up term it can find? The background section alone leaves me stupified beyond reason. The entire thing seems to be based on a 4chan meme and a couple of Reddit posts. And 'Angry pepe'? Really? The Pepe-meme? Really? The fact that the pepe-meme is included in a serious tone makes me suspect the author of this article is a troll, its that bad. Omegastar (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provided there is data about them, why shouldn't Wikipedia cover memes? There was a huge argument over
Campaign for "santorum" neologism but fortunately we realized it was worth covering. We feature practically every piece of software somebody is selling on the front page with everything but a buy now link, so why should we feel ashamed to describe the oddball ideas that make the news? Does someone have to put out payola to make something new acceptable for us to cover? Wnt (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You can find 'data' on literally anything. I consider myself an inclusionist, but even then there are many things that should not be included on Wikipedia. The 'Santorum' neologism is notable because it had a large impact - it displaced Santorum's official website and biographies on google. "A phrase used on 4chan and Reddit" (as the lead of the article puts it) is not notable. Your argument about software is not relevant, as that is an entirely different topic. And I am not sure what you are trying to say with your payola reference, though I will add that Wikipedia isn't a news-site, and its actually a good thing not to cover 'new' things as quick as possible, because you're not going to be able to write a balanced article about something until enough time has passed for its impact to become clear. Omegastar (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't know if the post on /r9k/ is really linked to the shooter or not. The Beta Uprising joke is in itself not notable, and is just mentioned as part of the brief news cycle. Right now there is not even enough sources to warrant a mention in the Oregon shooting article, let alone a full article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed some hesitancy to include it in that article myself, because we don't know for sure that the shooter in that case ever posted to 4chan. It might be a coincidence. But the media coverage cited here was of the meme and comments itself. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Omegastar. This is an encyclopedia, not Urban Dictionary. A terrible article about a non-notable meme, full of dubiously sourced attempts to link it to a recent murder. Wikipedia should not be promoting bilge like this. Reyk _YO! 09:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete puerile nonsense. Deserves at most a one sentence summary on "List of Internet phenomena" but no more. The existence of parody/satire on the internet, and false threats, means that BBC coverage is pointless. This is the worst of
WP:NOTNEWS and poor use of interpolated opinion pieces as "sources" -- Callinus (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There are plenty of sites out there to track memes. This seems to be not a real thing, and not a notable fake thing. HighInBC 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Same reasoning as Callinus above. samtar ^(msg) 18:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Men like these are under severe attacks by liberal animals and recently a completely reasonable article on Involuntary Celibacy that was fairly well cited had been removed for purely ideological reasons. One the main forces to keep it removed has been a <personal attack removed> who is now banned called Tarc. But memes like these are really not Wikipedia material and don't deserve to be even merged anywhere. If you want to start addressing these most crucial issues start with something that actually isn't just a meme. Especially given how there is now an article on Cuckservative now. Inclusionism, to a reasonable point. Wikipedia isn't reasonable and had fallen to ideology, it seems. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not knowyourmeme. --David G (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:GNG requires persistent coverage over a period of time. We don't have that and there's no indication we will. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Callinus. Should have stayed a speedy delete and sending this back to AFD to get snow deleted is process wonkery imo. shoy (reactions) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a really pointless Wikipeida page that was only based on a joke.--Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to Wiktionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
21:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete I’m adding
WP:NOTNEWS to the long list of reasons to delete this article. Almost all of the news articles that gave the term more than a passing mention were published on or within a couple of days of October 5th, 2015. I’ve only been able to find one news source that published information about the so-called Beta uprising on or after October 10th. Ultimately, I’m seeing this as just another twisted prank from 4chan that got a little bit of media attention but ultimately lacks lasting impact. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete if there isn't any sort of policy, it might be time to write one: internet memes, even if they cross to the mainstream are not notable for Wikipedia. At most, this should have a 1 line mention at List of Internet phenomena. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Echoing the general consensus that this is basically just another meme article for a meme that at present has no encyclopedic notability. Muldrake (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4chan. This, to me, ought to be redirect to 4chan as an example of the prank that it so obviously is. so that this doesn't occur again! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is not notable and uses the absolute lowest grade of The sky is falling! journalism as sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-On Delete Callinus said it perfectly. Crow^Caw 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an old meme that resurfaced due to recent events, it will be completely forgotten soon enough. BoxofPresents (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possible merge to 4chan. There is coverage of this, but it's not heavy enough at this point in time to warrant an article. Someone here had mentioned merging it somewhere and I think that this could probably warrant a brief mention at 4chan. The shooting page was mentioned, but I'm not entirely sure that this would be good to merge there. Reddit is always a possibility, but the name bandied around more in the news is 4chan.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - A 4chan in-joke doesn't need a full article, this isn't knowyourmeme. 82.197.242.162 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 4chan. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to suggest that what needs to happen here is for editors to use this article's sources to build stronger connections (prose, not just see-also) between the articles on the different shootings (Spencer, Roger, etc.), the different websites (4chan, Reddit MRAs, etc.), and relevant phenomena (violence against women). The sources are observing a trend, I'm just not sure a separate article is merited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4chan. I don't see why we can't redirect to 4chan. It would be trivially easy to add a sourced sentence there about this, if that's an issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article looks like it be more appropriate for something like UrbanDictionary than Wikipedia. The citations are questionable at best. PlantRunner (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cause this is hilarious Weedwacker (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2015 (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/Beta_Uprising&oldid=1137613082"~~