A Comment on Site Notability
- The site is three weeks old
- The design is a standard Blogspot template, and no effort to customise it has seemingly been made.
- There are no published statistics or site counters available anywhere on the site. So we have to use Comments to ascertain the popularity of the site.
- No single posting has more than 2 comments on it. Out of the first 7 pages, there are a total of seven comments made. Out of these comments
- 1 is an advertisement
- 3 were made by site contributors
- 3 are by a single Blogger member who has decided not to share his profile. 1 of his comments being an advertisement
- This one is to me a border line racist joke
- Many jokes are discriminatory over the weight of Hurley's character, which I find offensive.
- Quite a few tasteless incest jokes, which are not only inaccurate (as they aren't biologically related) but also offensive. 
I have more comments to make in the next few hours too, but I'd better get on with what I'm paid for!01:29, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- This site's notability is definitely in question. However, anyone that finds the jokes on that site to be border-line racist should also consider deleting this extremely offensive page on Lostpedia: Selling Out (parody theory). That page has bothered me for a long time, with its obviously racist comparisons. The page is protected, so maybe a sysop could unprotect it, or nominate it for deletion. -- 07:18, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- The site has been featured on Laughing Squid in a rundown of LOLcat/Cat Macro variations: . Though the people who run the site have not put up a statcounter, I would guess they would get a significant amount of traffic from that blog alone, which has a fairly high profile. Wyattrossiter 10:42, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- Delete: IMO this page does not serve a useful purpose. The content is while lacking, it doesn't add anything the least bit educational or useful to the wiki, the images verge of violating fair use, and the captions are rather immature. -Mr.Leaf 16:09, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
- Delete - for reasons above--Phil (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
- Strong delete: This page is very dumb as far as I'm concerned. Its parody value is very poor, extremely low brow, and a number of the examples were either not funny or slightly rude. Definite delete --Nickb123 (Talk) 16:11, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
- Delete: I agree. The images violate fair use, and it seems that this article doesn't add anything to Lostpedia. --Marik7772003 16:12, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
- Keep/Modify: Eh, going by that criteria, pretty much all of the parody-related pages would have to be deleted as well; they don't technically contribute anything meaningful to the wiki either, aside from humor. Maybe for this article trim out all the pictures (save, say, one random example), keep a description of what this particular type of humor entails, and an external link or two? I don't find these particular examples to be very funny, and neither do you guys apparently, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't funny. Humor's a subjective thing. :) --Shodan1138 17:04, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
- The existence of parodies on this site is and always will be under question, depending on the content. I am raising a SysOp debate on this as we speak. 08:19, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- Delete Delete Delete Lostpedia is NOT about documenting each and every fan page out there. --Libbyjones715 17:12, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
- Delete: Stupidity at its finest.--CaptainInsano 17:14, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
- Delete: Non-notable, not funny, there just fan icons, created by single-purpose account (or so it seems), the list goes on and on --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 18:04, 26 May 2007 (PDT)
- Recently I checked the website link given and almost all the icons were either about something invisible or candy bars. Most of them made little or no sense at all. --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 04:19, 5 June 2007 (PDT)
- Delete: Definitley not worth it. A waste of space on perfection.--Countdown 17:17, 2 June 2007 (PDT)
- Delete for reasons above. -- 17:59, 2 June 2007 (PDT)
- Delete, yo as this page is terribly useless, without a doubt.--CastorTroy 18:47, 2 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep/Modify I created this entry to document that someone had taken an internet phenomenon (LOLcat/Cat Macros) and modified it to include the LOST universe. I don't see why it should be deleted, it simply adds documentation of LOST's effect on mass culture, particularly internet culture, on which LOST (through Youtube and the LOST Experience) has made a considerable impact.Wyattrossiter 17:55, 4 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep/Modify This is a parody / example of Lost humor. Taste is subjective; and is no cause of deletion. There is only one image example, I cant see how this is wasting anyone's space.LyndsayDiaries 18:01, 4 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep/Modify: The LOLx image macro sites are currently gaining a lot of popularity and it is nice to see this concept applied to things beyond pets. I must say this is the only site I have heard of that applies this humor tactic specifically to the Lost TV series, or any TV series for that matter. scottmckaygibson 18:02, 4 June 2007 (PDT)
- Delete I can understand your reasoning, but it looks like that site is made up by 8 year olds. The captions make no sense and we do not need yet another parody of our favourite show on this excellent website.--Countdown 04:14, 5 June 2007 (PDT)
- Note: I'm discounting two keep votes outright, as they were made on the same day close together by apparently two users who made an account cause they felt so strongly about this vote... not that that's bad but I sense a little sockpuppetry might be going on --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:27, 5 June 2007 (PDT)
- Delete - As much as I love lolcats, I didn't laugh once at these. -Chris[dt7] 05:12, 5 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep: Just because I can vote. I strongly agree with the other keep votes. I for myself will never look at this link but personally i think we have so much, excuse my language, crap on this wiki, so why can't we keep this crap. Just to quote PandoraX in the Lost Wiki talk page: "I'd just say that one of the things that makes us a great comprehensive resource is that we reference or link all notable websites in the fan community (...)" , so if there's really a big internet phenomenon arround this lol-stuff, then why not give it a chance and keep it.... --Maith 05:15, 5 June 2007 (PDT)
Keep: I still don't understand why "I don't think this is funny" is a cause for deletion. Wyattrossiter 11:01, 5 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep: It's a Lost parody and this is a Lost encyclopedia. Why delete? --Blueeagleislander 02:22, 6 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep: hey everyone, current lostpedia parody guidelines state this: "One of the factors that contribute to make LOSTpedia the best collaborative encyclopedia related to the ABC TV show LOST is our ability to maintain a healthy and fun environment. Unlike most databases, we have included parodies as part of our regular content, be that links to spoofs (The Sawyer Song) or original content by us (Signs You Work For Dharma)." having visited the Lol*lost site and actually read the entries, it would seem to me that the contributors are fans. non-fans would not be able to play with some of the plotline subtleties that the Lol*lost contributors do. Lastly, i personally find the site pretty funny (LOL).--Rooneyromero 08:31, 6 June 2007 (PDT)
- Strong Delete. Hey, 2002 wants its O RLY? back. This is awful, unfunny, unoriginal and purile. Its a blatant advertisement for the blog, rather than anything thats particularly relevant. Its a net meme that I've honestly never heard of. Whats next? All your hatch are belong to us? Such a strong delete that if you ate this delete, your partner couldn't kiss you for a week. -- 08:59, 6 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep: One thing I love about Lostpedia is how thorough this site is. All have done a great job building the most extensive LOST resource anywhere. Lostpedia has proven itself to be an incredible companion to the best show in telelvision history.
I have appreciated being given information on all that is out there regarding LOST. Like anything else however, it is my job as the Lostpedia visitor to decide for myself what is worthwhile information and what is total nonsense. Once this choice gets taken away from us then Lostpedia becomes a secret club and less of a valuable resource to all. I think it is vital to the Lostpedia's credibility and accessibility that this Lollost entry remains right where it is...in the "parody" section. --Campdesign 18:20, 6 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep/Modify/Meta: Keep for all the reasons above. Modify - if it doesn't deserve it's own article, at the very least, include it on the list on the main parodies/fanlinks page. Meta - seems like there is a conflict here because the broader issues haven't been addressed in the policy/style guide sections about 1) what criteria we are supposed to use for creating, keeping, and deleting pages other than personal preference and 2) what constitutes relevance/importance when dealing with internal parodies, external parodies, and articles about other sites in general. These are broader issues that should be hashed out on the policy/style pages and not here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackdavinci (talk • contribs) .
- Currently 9 keeps to 13 deletes. --Blueeagleislander 02:45, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- Including 5 keeps from users who signed up to vote keep and haven't contributed since, which is also taken into account. 02:49, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- Keep: Lolcats is noteable at Wikipedia (among the 1.6 million other places), so Lol*lost should be notable here. Lol*lost, like most humor, is subjective. It is likely only funny if you have already seen the massive set of lol*cats stuff on fark, blogs, wikipedia, etc. That being said, I would change my vote to delete if we could delete all the unfunny childish parody articles that are featured on Lostpedia. For example: Rose being compared to Aunt Jemima, Locke being compared to a penis, etc. -- 08:16, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- I have raised this with the SysOps and at the parody guidelines page. If you want to bring a discuss parodies in general, can you please contribute here. Its about time we took control of a lot of this content as it is not beneficial to anyone at all. The content isn't needed here. We are here to document Lost, not create Lost based content. Anyone can launch a site to do that. 08:26, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- I think it would be equally fair to discount "Delete" votes that simply assert that the entry/site is not funny (which seems to be most of them). Those aren't reasons, those are declarations of subjective taste. It's also worth noting that the site has been featured on Laughing Squid, a fairly prominent blog:  Wyattrossiter 08:50, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- Each opinion is taking on the individual merit of what is said, and who says it. Further more, no one seems to want to counter my notability comments above, which really are the key issues here. Lost isn't the thing that draws people, the meme is. Futher more, its hardly a mention, LOL*Lost is at the near bottom of a very long list of these things. None of which make sense, and nearly all are childish and/or offensive. 09:04, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- Sorry to take sides plkrtn, but you know, got to follow my heart and all that... That being said, I really feel like Dagg countered your notability comment quite nicely.
--11:55, 7 June 2007 (PDT) Further thoughts: with the exception of point #1, plkrtn's thoughts on notability were either subjective or speculative at best. Upon visiting the Lol*lost site, I found nothing to indicate that any of the contributors were attempting to slander groups of people or promote plkrtn's alleged claims of racism and weight discrimination. The LOST writers themselves have portrayed Hurley as being a candybar-hording fat guy. Plkrtn's second linked example shows Jin with a man in a chicken suit where Jin is stating that he is planning to keep the large chicken and use it in a sandwich has nothing to do with Hurley and his weight. And lets not forget about the importance context people: each Lol*lost entry contained text to describe specific and fictional characters in the show and not the real world at large (pardon the pun).
Plkrtn's comment that the parody site in question contained "Quite a few tasteless incest jokes, which are not only inaccurate (as they aren't biologically related)..." gives us a brief peek into plkrtn's personal sense of humor. I'm not saying this to put him or her down, but simply to point out that here, Plkrtn expects accuracy to be a part comedy, which is often not the case with comedy. No further thoughts on why he found the incest jokes to be tasteless were provided.
To me however, none of these issues are the true point. More important than notability is the concept that Lostpedia remains the most extensive LOST resource as it has been in the past. That Lostpedia lists parody sites does not in anyway detract from it's credibility since the bulk of entries have to do with the intricacies of LOST and it's plotlines and characters. That is the context of THIS site. If however, Lostpedia decided to remove all parody entries from the site, then we'd have no arguement would we? Except the arguement that Lostpedia is extensive in MOST and not ALL subjects of the TV show LOST.--Campdesign 11:33, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- Sorry, but you are MILES off on this one. Further more, the people who posted the article, and several of the users who are voting for it are the same people who run that site. Sorry. Its going. -- 11:55, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
- Delete: It's a whole page devoted to advertizing another site. Pretty pointless, it could be replaced with a single link from the Parody page or some such. If the page isn't deleted then I think someone should create a CafePress shop and sell T-shirs with "Got LOST?" printed on them, and then have a whole page here to link to it. --Doc 10:47, 7 June 2007 (PDT)
RESULT - DELETE. -- 11:55, 7 June 2007 (PDT)