Talk:Storm Area 51/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Joke

Resolved

Given its creator has said it was a joke and multiple media outlets call it satirical why do we not mention this?17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this event has recieved wide-spread coverage, has established itself as an internet meme, and even warranted a response from the US Air Force. --Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You are aware its a joke?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It was pitched as a joke. There are many many people out there with a less than solid grasp on what is acceptable behavior and what is not. There will be people going there and there very well may be deaths involved. Should this become a major event, this page is a good seed to build upon after the scheduled event if need be. If truly nothing comes of it, then I do believe a deletion would be in order however. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Or we can recreate it after the event, please read wp:crystal.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Was not aware, very good point. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and after the event, we can rename the article something along the lines of "Area 51 Raid" or whatever it comes to be called after it happens, and briefly mention the Facebook page in the section on history of the event. Allexx Ash (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Since the military has responded to media inquiries, I can foresee need and interest in the future. 71.161.125.23 (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
See wp:crystal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
No, because the military responded to this. That is a fact. That makes this a legitimate matter. This isn't about predicting anything. It's a matter of preparation, like saving for emergencies. Saving money for emergencies isn't a matter of prediction. 71.161.125.23 (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent stubification

@Kingofaces43: Uh... what? your edit summary here appears to be confused about what exactly an "edit war" is. You made a bold edit and it got reverted (WP:BRD), the onus is on you to discuss. Also, "continue trying to revert this content"? WTF? That was my first and only edit to this article. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Anyway, I fundamentally disagree with your earlier edit summary rationales. For example you removed effect on local businesses because " Already removed once due to WP:CRYSTAL issues, and not really tied directly to event in some cases." That's not what the sources say: they aren't about general every day business in Nevada, they're specifically about local businesses preparing for and hoping for some business from crazed Area 51 tourists. Not sure how you think that isn't tied to the event. SnowFire (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For your first paragraph, please remember that WP:ONUS is policy, specifically The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Much of the content you tried re-adding and then later reverting back in had already been inserted once in some form or another with various problems being pointed out with them when they were then removed even before your edits. I did nothing bold, I just did a standard removal of content that's repeatedly failed to gain consensus.
For actual content you mentioned, you pretty much just brought up the WP:CRYSTAL issue. Some of that content was dealing with just general Area 51 interest in a more broad sense, and even that runs afoul of CRYSTAL policy in terms of what's WP:DUE about an "event" that hasn't even happened yet. There's a point where trying to expand the article easily bumps into undue weight territory at this point in time, and I tried to make some of those specifics a bit more clear by sectioning out edit summaries into multiple edits. A lot of the exposition we've been seeing coming in on new edits gets into WP:COATRACK issues too. When you cut through all that and get down to the meat of things, there's not a whole lot of substance to work with at this time as the current stub version (that's pretty much the same as before this was even nominated at AfD) is getting the same main information across in a concise manner as the more verbose versions that haven't gained consensus yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Two different issues here. Obviously I entirely agree that the burden is on people who want to keep content by WP:V, but all of the content on this page previously was in fact sourced, and seemed relevant enough. I don't even have a stake in this fight. I just mean that nominating an article for deletion then deleting it yourself out-of-process is frowned upon; you don't even need to open an AFD then. It also makes earlier votes be for a different version of the article. People were voting "keep" for a fuller version of the article that included information you felt was irrelevant. You should respect their opinions per WP:CONSENSUS, because there doesn't appear to be any verification / sourcing problems here. (I should add that I say this as someone who has nominated articles for deletion, lost, and then only removed the most egregiously bad content from the article rather than all of it - the community made the "Wrong" decision but I respected it.)
For WP:CRYSTAL, did you actually read those articles? They are not about "general Area 51 interest in a more broad sense", they are about this particular Facebook event. Granted, they are currently sparse news-of-the-weird articles that, in 6 months, won't make a strong argument for notability, but I can't understand how you'd claim they're not about this topic. an internet craze to "Storm Area 51" has gained attention from around the world in the first sentence, The internet has been buzzing with excitement about a Facebook event in the second sentence, etc.
It's very easy to just say that "the verbose version hasn't gained consensus yet" but I don't see any evidence of that. People were voting keep on the larger version, and you want to delete the article entirely, not merely reduce its scope. Let the AFD finish. If it's closed as keep, then just wait 6 months. I'm sure the parts that turned out irrelevant and flash in the pan will be obvious then, and if that applies to too much of the article, it can be safely merged. But it's premature to just delete the article while the AFD is in progress. SnowFire (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup, this is the kind of stuff WP:NOTNEWS outlines both in terms of notability, but more germane to this page, WP:DUE. Focusing on DUE since we're not at AfD, your comments are getting to trouble with CRYSTAL policy again with the wait and see comments. We deal with the here and now while avoiding pitfalls like WP:RECENTISM. Right now, nothing is being blanked while it's at AfD (and my views are much more nuanced than a plain delete, so please don't misrepresent them). The normal content building process goes on regardless of AfD. If something is going to emerge beyond the stub this article was before I started cleaning up here, it still needs to gain consensus. Right now, there's a lot of problems with most attempts at expanded content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Cleaning up" is blanking? Geolodus (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any edits that have been blanking the page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Partial blanking. Geolodus (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope. The content hadn't gained consensus and people were trying to reinsert it again and again. It's not blanking an article when it was a stub before and new content wasn't getting consensus. For everyone here, please remember that WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS are policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Its not happened yet, and indeed the creator has said it was a joke, thus it may not happen. Lets see what happens (when and if it happens).Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I'm seeing now that a talk page discussion about your edits has already started. Yet you continue to revert and remove most of the article. You've been given your warning about edit warring on your talk page. Don't revert and wait until consensus is reached. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, please remember to undo your revert here. WP:ONUS is policy, so if you want specific content, you need to gain consensus for something, not the other way around. The policy is quite clear as I've repeatedly stated, and that content cannot be reinserted until then. I've already pointed out the numerous problems. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: WP:BRD exists, period. I started a new discussion below. Also it's quite apparent there's a conflict-of-interest in the fact that You proposed the article for deletion and then stripped the article of all of its subsections. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC); Edited 23:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please keep in mind I already essentially asked you to follow BRD. Again, with that in mind and WP:ONUS, we can't to flipping things around, and I highly suggest you strike the above aspersions. I've made it very clear what I actually view with respect to why I trimmed the initial article only slightly thinking it might just be a merge instead of delete until I saw what content there actually was out there and . Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Kingofaces, are you trying to enrage people? I mean this seriously. Don't edit other people's talk page comments. Don't accuse others of edit warring when you are the one making the same edit repeatedly. Don't accuse others of not respecting consensus when you're the one going off and deleting the article before the AfD (aka how Wikipedia determines consensus for contentious articles) hasn't even finished. Seriously.

Also, your protestations that my procedural note was not necessary in the AfD are quite incorrect. Like I said, I've done similar such prunings of an article I hoped to delete before - and properly said so at the AFD. You should have made such a notification of your own initiative of such a massive mid-AfD change. What's the harm in saying so? It'd even arguably buttress your point with "I've already deleted some of the worst bits", if people agreed that content was bad. Let me again stress that even if this article was the most deletable thing ever, it wouldn't matter, don't do an out-of-process deletion, wait for the damn AFD to close.

In response to your comments, my comments are "not getting into trouble with CRYSTAL policy". We have sourced information about an Internet meme that is happening right now. We would have CRYSTAL problems if we were describing the event in too much detail, but the article is quite clear that it hasn't happened yet and nobody has any idea if it will. You're free to disagree but this is hardly a cut-and-dry policy violation or some such. SnowFire (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There's shouldn't be anything enraging about me following policy. I have never edited anyone's comments here either (changing an inappropriately personalized section titled isn't doing that either). There's way too much personalizing going on at this talk page already, and I've been cautioning people to knock it off and focus on the content. The CRYSTAL and COATRACK issues don't get resolved just by saying we have sources. It's the matter of speculation within that doesn't pass muster for WP:DUE.
I also made no massive changes when I nominated the article as already mentioned. AfD is about notability, while content discussion belongs on this talk page. Content developments do not stop due to an AfD nom in either direction. They still need to go through normal consensus building. It wasn't until after the AfD that more content started being added, but it had problems as already described. That doesn't get a free pass from consensus requirements just because of AfD, and my removals are independent of AfD outcome. Seeing the content available, I would have had a similar amount of content whether I was voting keep or my "technical merge that's functionally already done, just figure out what to do with the potential redirect question". Even when someone noms an article, it still should be curated in the process as if it was going to be kept, which I was doing. It's time to knock off those comments direct me and the AfD which are more than debunked at this point and rather silly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You still don't get it, do you? I made this section about your behavior. I don't give a shit about "content amount". I haven't edited this article at all and don't care about it. I made this section because you, AFD nominator, was stubifying the article mid-AFD and also pre-emptively accused me of "edit warring" (off my mighty 1 procedural edit to the article), so I wanted to discuss your actions here from a standpoint of procedural massive-changes-to-article-under-discussion. (Incidentally, if you had asked me nicely saying "Hey let's refocus this section some, would you mind modifying the header" I might have been fine with that.). You can't tell me I'm wrong because guess what, I am the expert about what I intended to say, which is exactly why editing other people's talk page comments is discouraged, which yes includes section headers. Anyway, there's a new section below on the content from a steely Wikipedia perspective. This section is about your behavior which has crossed the line into inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND territory and unfortunately needed to be discussed. (Anyway, there's now a section below on proper content.) SnowFire (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Since this is about behavior, I recommend User talk:Kingofaces43 or a noticeboard (WP:ASPERSIONS, but I have no comment about who is right or wrong). —PaleoNeonate – 06:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well. Editor behavior related to actions on this article specifically. I've modified the section header to be a split-the-baby middle option - this is about whether a radical stubification of the article (Kingoface's action) should occur during the AFD, not a bland discussion of "content amount". Hopefully this should satisfy all sides. SnowFire (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case, would you mind restoring the article to the rough status quo or even the edit before one was established (i.e., the edits making it through the first round of review)? By your same logic, editors should not be majorly expanding content "mid-AfD". I only condensed very little redundant content when I first nominated this, and anything beyond that is the scope of this talk page requiring consensus for disputed additions, not AfD, so it doesn't matter what stage an AfD is at.

Otherwise, I can only essentially echo PaleoNeonate's allusion to WP:FOC. Article talk pages have specific purposes, and I've been asking people to follow that. Anything I've brought up even closely related to behavior I've been keeping it to mention of what content-building expectations are that when someone adds content, and it gets reverted, you don't add it back in without explicit consensus per WP:ONUS policy, and nothing really overrides that. That's the standard starting point for talk page discussions (i.e., WP:BRD) when a new addition gets disputed. I've been trying to keep it by the book, so I only ask that other editors focus on content as well. If someone wants to gain consensus for the disputed edits, they'll need to demonstrate why they are needed from a policy-based perspective rather than a WP:STRAWPOLL of general opposition to removal. That's why I had it the article set back at the status quo so people could slowly work through edits and discuss them individually, and I would still recommend starting that process. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: It's ridiculous you even suggest reverting the page to a stub "status quo" or that you say we should "start the process" of discussing each edit individually when there's an ongoing discussion about what to include, and you have already participated in said conversation. Stop accusing people of edit warring. Don't blank pages you've nominated for AfD. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. And learn to act in good faith instead of citing WP:ONUS everytime. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Facebook event deleted: what edits should be made?

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/area-51-raid-event-to-see-them-aliens-removed-by-facebook/ ˜”*°•.˜”*°• djdj5050 •°*”˜.•°*”˜ 04:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is why some of us nominated this for AFD, it may never happen.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The article isn't about a future event, it's about the notability and memes surrounding the proposed event. It doesn't matter if it happens or not, it was still notable in July. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Then it needs rewriting as the lede refers to "a Facebook event currently planned for September 20, 2019".Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Which fails WP:RECENTISM as you basically indicated the topic is not encyclopedic (and why people mentioned WP:10YT at AfD). The page will probably have to re-nominated at this rate for deletion with that in mind once the furor has died down and people remember this isn't the place for little blips of internet memes or events that didn't happen. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Alien image

Hi. I added this image to the background section with the following caption:

File:El extraño caso de los aliens.jpg
Group organizer Matty Roberts wrote for the event "Lets see them aliens", evoking the Area 51 alien conspiracy theories (Gray alien illustrated)

The image was aligned to the right in the article, but centered here. Of course, image revert by who you'd typically expect. So I'm here to gain consensus before its "contentious" addition.

  1. A big focus on the event is the alien/UFO conspiracy theory so it may be helpful to depict a gray alien for those wanting to understand the meme.
  2. The image is free, so there's no issue there. I also believe that its one of the better free depictions we have of the gray alien.
  3. The "Lets see them aliens" line is frequently reported on in the media, so lets see them.

Somebody reverted on the grounds that it "wasn't encyclopedic" and I really don't need another edit war going on. You can believe the image doesn't "add" anything, but it doesn't subtract from the article either. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Pinged since you reverted and wrote Doesn't contribute anything encyclopedic, would appreciate it if you further elaborated on this comment. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
No need for pings on this talk page. I'll let others comment on it more first, but in large part, it doesn't meet WP:DUE. Part of the WP:COATRACK problem here is going off on tangents or content that amounts to WP:FLUFFWP:WHIM. There are no known images of "aliens", and this isn't an article about speculation or WP:FRINGE theories about what they may look like. Even setting aside the joke aspect for bit, the "event" isn't focusing on what they would look like, nor is this specific image used. It's reaching into WP:SYNTH territory. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: Going over the poem you wrote...
It appears you forgot to read my last comment. There's no need to ping people repeatedly when the page is already watchlisted. Otherwise, I've already discussed quite a bit with you on your talk page about following policy, and that's no different here (also please watch the tone).
Due weight means things aren't added on a WP:WHIM (what I should have linked instead of fluff, but same meaning). It's indiscriminate at this point and the specific image not directly germane to the article. The coatrack issues are in totality, and each individual edit like this one adds up to the problem. Your comments still don't directly address the fringe for synth issues either. Please also keep in mind the burden here is on you to demonstrate the necessity of the image. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see what an image of a fictional alien adds to the article. The user seems to conflate editing an encyclopedia with making funny posts on a Facebook page. Zaathras (talk)
Also (if we accept there are aliens there) how do we know they look like this? I fail, to see what this adds to our understanding of the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree. No alienwashing, please.--Auric talk 13:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you guys fix the link to the event. It got deleted by facebook, and Matty made a new one. And if you wish, you can petition Mark Fuckerberg to bring the event back at this change.org link: [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.192.253 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Should we bring nerf masks, nerf guns and nerf go carts to the raid. Because safety Bunno Yeet (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2019

In the section "Facebook event and Internet meme", the link for "Education Implementation Office" directs to a building site in Singapore, although it intends to link to a Dutch institution known as DUO (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs). No page for DUO exists on the English Wikipedia, so the link should probably be removed altogether. TheeJazz (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done , Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

this is stupid but fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.67.31 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Citations of events on reddit should cite reddit, not some third party

There are various citations that supposedly back up claims for events happening on reddit. These all point to third-party websites (meaning not Wikipedia and not reddit). This seems like a poor attempt at SEO of these third party websites. For example, citation 32 points to https://comicbook.com/anime/2019/07/20/area-51-raid-naruto-running-official-military-lessons-meme/ instead of https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/cfbgj1/actual_air_force_brief_my_cousin_had_to_sit/. Why aren't the respective reddit posts being linked here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.15.183 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Reddit would be considered a primary source in this context. Wikipedia generally bases its citations on secondary sources to establish notabilty and to avoid novel interpretations of the primary source. For more information, see WP:PSTS and WP:USINGPRIMARY Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is now included in the unusual articles list.

This article is now officially included in the wikipedia: unusual articles page. Due to the unusual nature of this meme and it's potential for a particularly humourous outcome on the 20th.Theprussian (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion by User:Kingofaces43

Want to go one-by-one for every section blanked by User:Kingofaces43

Proposal 1: Infobox removals

Infobox photo

There's a free image of Area 51 in the infobox with the caption "Aerial photo of Area 51". I believe we should keep this image. I see no good reason for its removal as its the proposed location of this event. I oppose the removal of this photo + caption.

The attack type is listed as "Charge, human wave". I think sources back that up, per the use of "naruto run". I wouldn't be fully opposed to this line's exclusion, but really no opinion on this.

Proposal 2: Removal of entire "Background" section

Yes... Kingofaces43 has removed the entire background section which links to Area 51 as the main article and explains the background of the location. How this removal could be justified is beyond me. I fully oppose the removal of this section.

Proposal 3: Removal of entire "Facebook event and Internet meme" section

How?! This article is about a Facebook event and how it became an internet meme. That's stripping the entire subject of the article away. I strongly oppose the removal of this section.

Proposal 4: Removal of "Government response" and "Effect on local business" sections

I oppose the removal of these two sections.

Please feel free to discuss each proposed removal/change but I hope we can reach a consensus soon. Don't want an edit war with WP:OPUS cited every revert to continue. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@SnowFire, Geolodus, Slatersteven, and Kingofaces43: Pinging all editors who participated above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing these sections. The article is up for deletion. Removing these seems like a way to have a defacto delete or so that editors can say that the article is a stub and can be deleted.--Auric talk 21:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Proposal 1: Oddly enough, I don't think Kingofaces went far enough. I'd be in favor of deleting the infobox entirely. It's not an event yet and doesn't have a date yet. The picture can stay but just as a normal article picture.

    Proposal 2: Oppose. Not everybody is up on American pop culture and knows what Area 51 is. Wikipedia is for an international audience. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

    Proposal 3: Weak Oppose but maybe trim. It's not even an event yet, it's a notable meme, so this is required. That said, it might require some trimming.

    Proposal 4: Strong oppose. This is actually the best and most notable information in the article, with sources directly talking about it and an actual impact on local communities and the military. Obvious keep. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

    Consolidated all of SnowFire's comments into one. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    Re:the infobox: The event does have a date, which is clearly stated in the infobox.--Auric talk 10:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If an actual human wave attack occurs that date at 3 AM, I will eat my hat and take it as evidence that the aliens running the computer simulation that is earth decided to have a bit of fun. The actual event is what happened right now - the meme where we have The New York Times explaining what a Naruto run is. SnowFire (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Deletion isn't going my way at AFD so I'll just blank the entire article instead" is how I read it, The article needs some work doing sure but it certainly doesn't almost need blanking. –Davey2010Talk 22:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2010 and Auric: please strike those comments as they had been specifically addressed above as misleading (and poisoning the well on any discussion here). The content had problems independent of keep or not, so saying I'm removing content because of the nom is putting the cart before the horse. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: What is so misleading about what I wrote that it would merit them having to strike out their comments? I listed what you had remove and I think the editors are more-than-capable of making their own assessments. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: Where have they been specifically addressed above as misleading? I don't see it.--Auric talk 10:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
For one you can start at the AfD nom itself, but also here, here, and the other reply I made in addition to your reply. WP:ASPERSIONS don't belong on article talk pages even if that wasn't the case though. At risk of being repetitive, I saw a lot of redundant content even before considering the nom, and most of the current stuff even then hadn't been added. Since then, my view hasn't changed that much of the content here doesn't belong even if I considered the topic notable enough for it's own article instead of the current essential merge at Area 51. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a reminder that the first step is starting at the current status quo. That's the content that hasn't been disputed so far in terms of the core material:
  • 1, I'm fine with the infobox removal since it's not truly an event (at least right now). There's no proposed "charge" or human wave, nor does that seem to be an event "type". It doesn't really add much needed info either. The picture itself isn't needed because it's not of any raid, it's just area 51, which is already linked in the article. It's not really adding anything, and even under the meme treatment, it generally should be an image-based meme if there's something to really show.
  • 2, Area 51 is already linked, and there's enough exposition given already for readers to know what the site is. Nothing new really germane to the article was introduced here.
  • 3, There's nothing to really support inclusion here from a weight perspective again. It's filled with speculation and runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR for "event" details.
  • 4, Government response has been covered in edit summaries already with no dispute on that, and the business topic has been discussed above a bit already. Too much speculation and WP:NOTNEWS for something like local hotel owners might get a slight uptick for a bit that doesn't really come across as WP:DUE when they get variation in occupancy anyways. It's reaching too much. Interest in Area 51 belongs at the main article, but this one wouldn't cut it there either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Leave out 1, its not an attack and not a human wave (see 5). As to the photo, no opinion.
    • No opinion on 2
    • Keep 3 its what the "event really is.
    • Leave out 4 At this time what we have is the authorities answering a question about a meme not an actual event. As to businesses, a booking and payment are not the same thing. Lets wait until after the event before trying to access its impact.,Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Keep "Government response" and remove "Effect on local business" (promotionalism), —PaleoNeonate – 12:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have boldly removed the infobox since at least a few other people agree it's more misleading than helpful. Feel free to revert if really controversial, but better to play it safe IMO. If an infobox is used to replace it, I'd suggest an infobox oriented more around memes and media phenomenons than actual events, at least for now. SnowFire (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jax 0677: It's not THAT longstanding an infobox, and it should have been removed again sooner IMO. When I originally removed it, I got several thanks / +1s. This is not an event, it's not even a PLANNED event anymore. It is a meme. If you check most of the links on List of Internet phenomena, most of them don't have Infoboxes, but if you can find an appropriate infobox for memes, go for it. The point is, there is a difference between an actual serious alien hunt a la Project Blue Book or even various TV shows (Ancient Aliens, etc.), and what this is. (If, god forbid, a major incident happens on September 20, the "event" can be put back then - but only if that scuffle outweighs the meme in importance.) SnowFire (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Event infobox

  • Keep event infobox - In my opinion, the event infobox is the best infobox for this occurrence that I know of. It should remain, unless there is something better to take its place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That's... not an argument. There needs to be an affirmative reason to keep something, not a claim that everything else is worse. Nyan cat or All your base are belong to us are just fine without an infobox. Anyway, see above section #Proposed deletion by User:Kingofaces43 for why I (and others!) feel that this infobox is misleading: this article is not about an event, it's about a meme. SnowFire (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


As I said from day one this may not be an event (in the sense of it may not happen), and the creator has said its not a real event (but was rather a joke). So no I do not think the event info box is appropriate. If there is no better one then we do not have one, there is no rule, that says we must have an info box.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

For now, the best solution is to remove the infobox for now, and in the unlikely event that on the 20th a large event that overshadows the buildup and the meme occurs we can re-add the event box. Integral Python click here to argue with me 18:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

In the last sentence of the background segment the current text says that Bob Lazar "claimed to have worked with alien spacecraft when working in an underground facility at area 51". He really claims to have worked at a secret site called S-4, located several kilometres south of the Area 51 United States Air Force (USAF) facility. Milkdromedus (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Both sources currently in the article currently verify the "underground facility at area 51" sentence. NiciVampireHeart 19:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Move to "Storm Area 51"?

I feel that "Storm Area 51" would be a more accurate name for this article, and it is already a redirect here. I recall a wiki policy stating that ideally names should be summarized, but unfortunately I'm not too familiar with things work around here, and how to start an official move request. Mount2010 (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2019

Change the "is" to "was" in the introduction since the event is over. D0nk m3m3s (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

So what happened, was it an event?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
No it is not. It will "officially" end at 6:00 AM PST (13:00 UTC). Allexx Ash (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yay its today

So any news yet, is this still a thing or a meme?Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

From the current edition of the article:

While intended as comedic, some people have taken the event seriously, and have traveled to the surrounding areas themselves. Beginning 20 September, people were reported camping around Rachel in preparation for the raid.

Allexx Ash (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well here is the thing, is it notable as a major event, or as a meme some people took seriously? So far we have not seen thousands, or even (as far as I can tell tens) turn up.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I say we wait for time to tell. By 6:00 AM local time (13:00 UTC), the scheduled event will "officially" be over, and whatever has happened by then will be considered the official conclusion of the event. Allexx Ash (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
My clock says 13:18 GMT. I would say it is over. So have we have not seen thousands, or even (as far as I can tell tens) turn up? Did they storm area 51, did in fact anything happened that might not have happened anyway (it is after all a UFO tourist destination, people go there all the time)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

YouTube coverage

Now that the sun has come up locally, there are tons of persons showing up at the camp sites and preparing for an actual march. I encourage anyone here to go to YouTube and check out some of the videos that are being uploaded. The crowds are not trivial. 2602:306:311F:13B0:1420:6CD5:1CF7:76CF (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Update

at 12:04am people started walking to the base, they arrived at 2:23am and stood outside the gates which had 4 gaurds standing there, At 3:00am (the time that the raid was to begin) people were still there but no one did anything, at 3:30am a man attempted to duck under the Barb wire they had set up, he was grabbed immediately and was taken away (presumably arrested) at 3:56am the connection to the livestream was lost and so far there is nothing as of yet, HOWEVER there are people saying that the group of people who showed up went back to Racheal and began planning something that people are refering to as "Alienstock" a party which will celebrate aliens and is a parody to the Woodstock Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoctor989 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Mmmm, not seeing much here to say this was (as above) much more then a meme that a very few people took seriously.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Well it turns out only 1000 out of the 2 million even showed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imarobothoorah (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


@Thedoctor989: Source? Benjamin (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This also raises another problem, there are at least three events mentioned in the article, this, alienstock and Storm Area 51 Basecamp. Thus this is not one event, but a meme that spawned (maybe) real events.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Text contradicts source

In the source, it says 1,500, but the text says one fifty. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShrekFinland (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


Only 150 went. Fifteen hundred work at Area 51. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.150.11 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well at least its in the 10's.Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2019

"Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us" → "Area 51 raid"

This concise name is commonly used in sources; the curent title is not mentioned. WP:COMMONNAME. [1] [2] [3]  Nixinova  T  C  22:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC

"Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us" [[4]] [[5]] [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

lead

Is for summarizing significant parts of the article. It is hard to see how the information about how many people responded is important enough to have this degree of detail in the lede, let alone in the body. Also I fail to see how the "high" going count is relevant, as we now know how many went.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The high going count is exactly what made this event notable. Nobody could've predicted that this joke would've had propagated so far and caused such far reaching consequences, but for some reason, it did. The various music festivals and the military and other government agencies scrambling to prepare for this day was a direct response to 2 million people pledging to show up. Because of the high count, Storm Area 51 became such the Internet phenomenon that it is, and omitting it from the lead severely reduces the reader's understanding of the scale of this event. ◢ 　Ganbaruby!　 　 09:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Scrambling to prepare? what was the response exactly, were thousands of troops or cops drafted in?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: That was poor wording on my part. I intended to point out the multitude of responses, which include: Roberts the The Little A'Le'Inn planning the multiple music festivals; official responses from the Air Force spokesperson, Nellis Air Force Base, FAA, and FBI; Lincoln County declaring an emergency situation and pooling resources in case of emergency; and of course, the general public's reactions via memes. None of these would have happened if the Facebook event had gotten 2 million people to sign up. ◢ 　Ganbaruby!　 　 22:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That is speculation, much of it might have happened if only 150 people said they might show up. But I also suggest you read wp:lede. The lede is supposed to be a summery of important points in our article, not there to empathize important points about the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Why the date?

Why was 20th September selected for the date of this event? - Shiftchange (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Special:Diff/916811215 by @AceAlen mentions public urination, however the reference given does not support this statement. Please remove the statement about the public urination. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The statement now specifies indecent exposure and alcohol-related arrests, both of which are sourced. I've added a ref tag to make the source clear. Marianna251TALK 19:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

outcome

Not sure that is a very good description of the outcome. The outcome was surely nothing?Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Motive

The organizer stated the motivation was a joke, humorous. The fact people took it seriously (possibly, has anyone actually said they did?) does not change the fact its motive was as a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No issue with removing it, as I am not sure there was an "real" motive anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

new redirect

This article needs a redirect for "area 51 meme" and other things similar. Mᴇɢᴀɢᴏᴀᴛ (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@MegaGoat: Well, why don't you make the redirect yourself? Just go to the page with the name you want (such as Area 51 meme) and paste #REDIRECT [[blah blah blah]] there. On the other hand, please make sure that the redirect will be useful for the readers before creating it (see WP:RPURPOSE for more details). Thank you. Gaioa (T C L) 14:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the help. Never knwe that! Mᴇɢᴀɢᴏᴀᴛ (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us → Storm Area 51 – The shorter title is widely more used. It googles 4 times as many as the full title and it is used as the universal name in the internet meme community (such as the KYM entry hardly even mentioning the full title). Although the original event had the description as well, WP:COMMONNAME clearly points to omit it. The full event name should still be the boldface title term in the article body, but a reader would expect to find this article with the event's shortened, commonly used, name. Gaioa (T C L) 18:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Honestly, that makes sense to me. As long as the full title is theboldface in the lead I think that's a much better reasoning for moveing it than others have proposed— Preceding unsigned comment added by IntegralPython (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Concise and accurate title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Most of the references refer to the shorter title (or "Area 51 Raid") and rarely is the full name used Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support : I couldn’t agree more. —CamiloCBranco (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Concise and unambiguous. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Concise and accurate. –Davey2010Talk 08:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per IntegralPython’s suggestion above. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 08:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is the picture of the sign and the path legal?

It says no photography doesn’t it? (And by the way, is that an FBI car😋?Just kidding.) Heroe Of Time (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"Clap alien cheeks" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clap alien cheeks. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Storm Area 51/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 04:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Background

Expand this section. When was Area 51 established, and to what end?

 Done I've added some more info relating to the site's opening and history, but let me know if you want more to be added. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Citation [1] is now repeated without need in the second paragraph.
 Fixed WackyWikiWoo (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • around the time the military began flying CIA U2 spy planes in the area. They would not be CIA planes if the USAF was flying them.
minus Removed I've removed that part of the sentence all together, it seems sufficient to just mention UFOs were spotted at the site. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Prose

  • "Facebook event and internet meme" is the place to introduce and discuss Matty Roberts.
 Done I've moved it down to that section. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Add his first name, please.
 Done WackyWikiWoo (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, that's Naturo running. What's this cheek clapping the youngins are talking about?
 Done I've added an... explanation? WackyWikiWoo (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, hilarious. Things like this make me wonder what aliens will think of us if they ever show up above our ball of rock. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 13:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • B-2 stealth bomber Could you make one link out of the three here?
 Done WackyWikiWoo (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Combine "Gathering" and "Music festivals"
 Done WackyWikiWoo (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The county has just 184 hotel rooms Make this past-tense.
 Done WackyWikiWoo (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IMpact

Most (all?) of the impact stuff is future tense, about preparations and projections (an issue here of wp:notnews). This should be re-written to be about the actual (not projected) impact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don’t see the issue, the section is talking about the impact on businesses and towns at the time of the event. I can’t see any future tense? Cartrisge273 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
First line, 40,000 people did not turn up so there was no impact of that scale. Second line... and so on. Anything about what people thoght might happen and prepared for is not an impact, its a projected impact that never happened.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I read it as the immediate impact the event had on businesses and the towns surrounding the site, maybe you’ve/I’ve misinterpreted? Could you suggest an alternative title for the section that may be better? Cartrisge273 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
As most of what it talks about never in fact came to pass it should be removed, and a new section created about actual impact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Well the event had no real long-term impact, the section is really just discussing the immediate preparations businesses and the towns were making pre-event. Maybe the section could be renamed “event preparations” or something? I personally think “impact” is fine, as the section is discussing the immediate impact.Cartrisge273 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
How about creating a level-2 header titled "Response", and put government, local, and businesses as three level-3 headers within? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 02:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. Cartrisge273 (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This is better.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This event is related covid-19

Before the assault on Area 51, everything was in order. After this event started coronavirus then fires, explosions and protests. It is necessary to indicate in article. Hold my tin foil hat. 185.216.194.189 (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Any source for your conspiracy theory? Babymissfortune 02:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
2019 was already ridden with protests around the world (for different individual reasons) before Roberts' Facebook post, and COVID-19 started spreading substantially outside China about four months after this raid was attempted. You would need to have a severely warped worldview to see any links between these events. Glades12 (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert

@Ganbaruby: I made my edit that you reverted on the basis of WP:PROFANE: Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. While I doubt in this case that the material's omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, I'm confident that even if it would, an equally suitable alternative could be found from the thousands of posts on this Facebook page. What do you think? Rublov (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure this is all that losing this makes the article "less informative, relevant, or accurate," I also doubt that "no equally suitable alternative is available." to illustrate the silly comments.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Nope. When omitted, the article lacks a huge chunk of information regarding the memes around the event. You may see these memes as “profane”, but it is important especially to illustrate the silliness of the entire event. This is what meme culture is like. There are no alternatives; a picture probably doesn’t qualify under fair use anyways. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you provide reliable sources to support your assertion that this particular meme is hugely important to the event? Rublov (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Of the 54 sources currently cited in the article (excluding the Joe Rogan podcast because it's not full-text searchable and the FunX article because it's not in English), a quick review reveals that only 2 sources (Vanity Fair and Time) mention the meme (note that the same Vanity Fair article is listed twice in the references). Based on that, I believe my original point still stands. Rublov (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rublov: I'm confused. Do you want to remove "clap alien cheeks" is offensive, or that it's not noteworthy enough to be in the article? For the latter, a simple search of "clap alien cheeks" on Google News will give you plenty. But we don't need 54 sources to say it, we just need 1. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 17:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I am considering whether its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate per WP:PROFANE. If an overwhelming majority of sources covering the event do not mention it, I think it's fair to say that it would not. Rublov (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Clapping alien cheeks was an important aspect of the event's memes. Sources about the event itself may not cover it, but sources covering the memes about the event most certainly do. It's one sentence with due weight in the correct section with a reliable source and even arguably not that profane. I really do not see a problem here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem, as I believe I have made abundantly clear, is that the material violates WP:PROFANE. If your argument is that it should nonetheless remain on the basis of WP:PROFANE's clause that its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, you need to provide reliable sources that indicate so. Just because one or two sources out of 50+ mention it in passing is not enough to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia if there is a policy-based argument for its exclusion. Rublov (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine. Here you go:

  • Global News: Another featured the message “Clap alien cheeks” — an internet-slang reference to a vulgar act. Footage from the scene shows the protesters actually breaking out in chants of “Clap their cheeks!” on Friday morning.
  • Dazed: The most bizarre aspect of the Area 51 debacle, though, had to be the sexual element, epitomised by calls to ‘clap alien cheeks’. Numerous memes appeared about bringing home sexy aliens and alien girlfriends. When I put this to Elixir, our Naruto runner, he said that he would in fact not clap alien cheeks upon successful entry into Area 51.
  • Gizmodo: “Memes. We’re here to raid Area 51. See aliens. Clap the cheeks. That’s all we’re here for,” Schon Crawley from Albuquerque, New Mexico, told me. “Memes ” that is about it, that’s the only reason we’re out here. Stupid-arse people online ” they’re my people. Where I’m from, all my friends consider me the resident meme god. So it’s my obligation to be out here for them.”
  • The Week: Alien-human relations can be yet more intimate in the #Area51 meme. The official merch site (set up by whoever created the Facebook event page) sells both crew necks and tank tops that boast, "I clap alien cheeks," the cheeks in question presumably being gluteal in nature.

But really, this isn't notability, and we certainly don't need all these sources in the article. The article should go beyond saying "there were memes" and actually elaborate on what those memes were, especially when we have sources backing it up. Information perceived as profane should not be judged by a different standard compared to any other piece of information. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to find some more sources, but, as you correctly note, notability is not the issue here. The issue is whether "clapping alien cheeks" is important enough to overcome the objection that it is a rather crude thing to include in an encyclopedia, and that issue is not resolved by locating a few more sources that mention it. You must realize by this point that your assertion that Information perceived as profane should not be judged by a different standard compared to any other piece of information is not correct, and that The article should go beyond saying "there were memes" and actually elaborate on what those memes were is already fulfilled by the description of the "Naruto run" meme, which is mentioned by far more sources, and more authoritative ones like the Newsweek and ABC News, anyway. Nevertheless, this is a silly argument about a silly meme, and I'm not interested in litigating it further. Keep it in the article if you want. Rublov (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but no user should win by wp:bludgeoning a content dispute. It has no place here, and 2 of us have said so. That should be enough to close this as no.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Also (as I said) there are other memes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This has to be an error nobody caught

Text reads" "The event was planned to take place in Amargosa Valley from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. PDT on September 20, 2019."

Really? Three hours, in the middle of the night? I think it should read "...to 6 p.m." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:CEC:E602:DD52:D67B (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Be bold and fix the error! Feel free to fix any errors you encounter, that's what the edit button is for. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk | contribs) 16:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storm_Area_51/Archive_1&oldid=1137207265"