628:, this is for Wikinews, maybe, but certainly not an encyclopedia. What may be proportionately notable on the internet is usually, including in this case, disproportionately non-notable in the "real world". In other words, just because it's a big deal on the internet doesn't make it a big deal. In terms of WP:NOT, I'm citing points 2.3, 2.9, 2.10. Digging into the problem with this article more I would argue WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:ROUTINE all would deny this article a spot here. I think it more appropriate Wikinews cover this event. Naturally time could bear me out to be incorrect; but I would posit this "event" be gone and forgotten by all but a few web trolls (not trying to point anyone out specific here) in but a few months.
56:. In the delete camp, Metal.lunchbox invokes the latter in terms of the often ephemeral nature of web content, while SheepNotGoats invokes the former with close attention to whether or not the coverage (which obviously exists) is truly "significant." A Quest For Knowledge responds to these points with links to sources, but does not really offer a policy argument. In general a case is not made that this viral video meets our notability guidelines, and the objections from delete !voters on that front are not well responded to.
480:
our requirements. Seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. I don't understand why people have to run and create an article for every little thing that gets mentioned in the news one day. I wish WP had a rule that we had to wait X amount of time after something is mentioned the news before it can have an article, so we don't have to waste time having these crystal ball AFD discussions.
724:: Although the initial decision to close (as keep) was reverted and the article relisted, it appears that the AfD notice on the article was removed after the close and was never reinstated (until I did so just now). Not sure what the procedural implications are of having an article listed in AfD for a week without a notice on the page, but at least the notice is there now.
311:- The video is funny but it is not notable. aside from a description of the video itself the article is unsourcable. There is no reason to believe that people in the future will have a reason to read about this. THere is a funny video that gets popular on Youtube every week, almost none of them are notable, momentary popularity may seem like notability but it is not. see
252:- I agree that the person is not notable, but the viral video is. So I renamed the article "EHarmony cat video" and we've begun editing the article to focus on the video, not the person. As for sources, a few secondary sources are used in the article itself, and I added several more to the talk page. They just need to be integrated into the article, that's all.
518:
to address the issue on whether or not the Daily Mail is considered reliable, because my issue with it is that it doesn't provide particularly significant coverage to begin with (with a whopping 12 sentences). Now, you may want to consider not badgering every single "delete" comment. It doesn't make you look good.
414:
The Mail is probably an OK source in this case. But it's not a very compelling source - an anonymous video exists, got some hits, and was given a bit of media coverage over a couple of days. I suggest that if the parodies become a meme - or anything else springs up showing enduring interest - then we
479:
The only one that comes close to meeting the "significant coverage" stipulation of GNG is the Daily Mail article, and even that's a stretch (especially in light of
StrangePasserby's comment). If 6 months from now, this video becomes a permeating meme, fine, write an article then. But today, it fails
517:
That's great, but I went by the sources that were provided in the article. And I "failed to address" your comment because, if you look at the timestamps, your comment was posted a whole 2 minutes before mine, so I didn't even see it until after I had finished writing mine. But anyway, I see no need
315:
specifically, ' "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," ' Remember that notability mean impact. It is true that some sources noticed the video but they simply describe it say that its popular and embed the video, they otherwise don't have much to say about it. They're likely just
59:
All that said, this video has definitely attracted a lot of attention and is popular (it's funny!). The creator might well go on to some sort of career in entertainment given the popularity of this video. Were that to happen, there would be no prejudice against recreation of the basic content now
400:. I think that in the case of a viral video, this source is more than acceptable. AFAIK, none of the information in the article is contentious/controversial. I mean, you're not seriously suggesting that the Daily Mail is wrong and that this video doesn't exist, that it's not about cats, etc.?
206:; she is apparently known for a parody youtube movie. The movie has minor coverage in mid/low quality sources but nothing substantive and doesn't seem to be particularly notable amongst the hundreds of youtube videos/memes mentioned in passing by news outlets each year (i.e. it too fails
584:, there's no evidence that this is being covered as anything except a funny news story, and Knowledge (XXG) is not the newspaper. Knowledge (XXG) should not be the catchall for trivia that only gets a few tabloid articles and insigificant or nonexistent coverage from everything else.
316:
trying to capture a little of the videos ephemeral popularity. It is pretty much inconceivable that the passage of time will do anything but make this topic vanish into complete irrelevance, down the memory hole. The creator of the video is herself certainly not notable.
750:. I was initially inclined to recommend deletion for lack of notability, but the cited sources (other than YouTube) appear to be independent, reliable, and significant. I'm still a bit unsure of the wider significance (if any) of this video, which is why I'm saying "
289:
requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This has been provided. The video has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure what you're looking for.
48:
This AfD moved from a discussion of an obviously non-notable BLP, to a more debated article about a viral video. Along the way there was a procedural close of keep which the closing admin switched to relist upon being prompted, which was a good move.
705:- Too early to tell if notable. This seems like an article that should be allowed to stay for now, but then given a natural burial in a few months as it most likely slips into obscurity/non-notability. After all, notability is not temporary.
171:
270:. Sourcing is vague at best, maybe one or two low-mid quality news articles and then some trivial mentions in lesser sources. All dating from the same day. It has no enduring notability. --
231:- Sources have been listed on the article's talk page, and simply need to be integrated. Article is no longer about the individual, but about the video -- it's been moved to
132:
419:". The tabloid media report on hundreds of these trivial things a week and the reason we have "NOTNEWS" is to avoid filling up Knowledge (XXG) with each and every one :) --
602:
165:
550:
and also made reference to it ("a few secondary sources are used in the article itself, and I added several more to the talk page") in this discussion yesterday.
60:
being deleted in one form or another. I'm also happy to userfy it if someone is so inclined, but for now the discussion seems to me to warrant a deletion. --
545:
If one is going to vote in an AfD, they should perform some due dilegence to research the topic. I posted new sources on the article talk page yesterday,
372:
499:
335:
495:
331:
629:
70:
17:
105:
100:
501:
You've seemed to have missed a couple. I note that SheepNotGoats failed to address my comment that reliability depends on context.
109:
770:
736:
562:
508:
405:
346:
295:
257:
216:
Content may deserve a brief mention in a list article about internet parodies, but I can't find one that fits for the moment.
92:
186:
497:
333:
153:
645:
At request, I've reverted my closure (which was a procedural keep on the basis of a major change in the article title to
312:
53:
789:
36:
558:
504:
401:
368:
342:
291:
253:
441:- Utterly fails GNG. In each of the independent sources listed, the video gets the following amount of coverage:
788:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
321:
147:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
355:
Just for the record, it has been established repeatedly across multiple fora, including (but not limited to)
523:
485:
240:
758:
doesn't mean "temporary notability is not real notability", but more like "once notable, always notable".
774:
740:
714:
693:
660:
637:
633:
617:
593:
566:
512:
489:
425:
409:
376:
350:
325:
299:
276:
261:
244:
222:
143:
74:
66:
554:
646:
364:
232:
96:
193:
282:
267:
766:
732:
341:
coverage, but it's not up to us as
Knowledge (XXG) editors to say that reliable sources are wrong.
317:
179:
88:
80:
672:
519:
481:
397:
385:
236:
755:
613:
589:
61:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
710:
356:
286:
207:
203:
159:
381:
759:
725:
689:
656:
494:
Actually, I provided three sources which cover the video as whole and not in passing.
609:
585:
421:
272:
218:
649:) and relisted. I have, as I said, no opinion on the article in either version.
126:
754:
keep". Commenting on Crtrue (Carson)'s comment above, my understanding is that
706:
557:
regarding deletion, these are the types of issues that need to be discussed.
393:
675:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
52:
The notability guidelines are operative here, specifically the GNG and also
330:
This isn't true. Here are some sources which describe the video in-depth.
684:
651:
415:
can reassess. But for the moment the media reports basically amount to "
450:
Daily Mail - 18 sentences total (of which only 12 are about the video)
389:
782:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
553:
I'm sorry that you feel badgered. But in order to reach
551:
548:
546:
502:
213:
Beyond the video no other sources have any information
122:
118:
114:
178:
682:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
192:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
792:). No further edits should be made to this page.
603:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
601:Note: This debate has been included in the
600:
202:Article is about an individual who fails
337:Maybe you don't think that this video
266:The video is not notable either - see
363:a reliable source for our standards.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
388:, for example, is a great source on
285:but it doesn't apply in this case.
24:
235:and rewritten & reorganized.
384:heavily depends upon context.
1:
359:, that we don't consider the
396:, but a terrible source on
809:
775:02:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
741:02:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
715:13:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
472:Social Times - 2 sentences
456:Ditigal Life - 7 sentences
75:04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
694:20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
661:20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
638:04:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
618:12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
594:18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
567:14:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
513:14:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
490:13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
426:14:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
410:13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
377:13:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
351:13:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
326:01:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
300:12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
277:06:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
262:22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
245:22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
223:21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
785:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
469:Sun News - 3 sentences
466:CBS News - 3 sentences
453:CTV news - 8 sentences
559:A Quest For Knowledge
505:A Quest For Knowledge
402:A Quest For Knowledge
343:A Quest For Knowledge
292:A Quest For Knowledge
254:A Quest For Knowledge
313:WP:Notability (web)
54:WP:Notability (web)
647:EHarmony cat video
398:general relativity
386:Sports Illustrated
281:I'm familiar with
233:EHarmony cat video
44:The result was
696:
620:
606:
459:Trivial mentions:
73:
800:
787:
681:
677:
607:
365:Strange Passerby
197:
196:
182:
130:
112:
64:
34:
808:
807:
803:
802:
801:
799:
798:
797:
796:
790:deletion review
783:
670:
139:
103:
87:
84:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
806:
804:
795:
794:
778:
777:
744:
743:
718:
717:
699:
698:
697:
679:
678:
667:
643:
641:
640:
622:
621:
597:
596:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
467:
461:
460:
457:
454:
451:
443:
442:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
318:Metal.lunchbox
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
247:
200:
199:
136:
83:
78:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
805:
793:
791:
786:
780:
779:
776:
772:
768:
764:
762:
757:
753:
749:
746:
745:
742:
738:
734:
730:
728:
723:
720:
719:
716:
712:
708:
704:
701:
700:
695:
691:
687:
686:
680:
676:
674:
669:
668:
666:
665:
663:
662:
658:
654:
653:
648:
639:
635:
631:
627:
624:
623:
619:
615:
611:
604:
599:
598:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
579:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
547:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
525:
521:
520:SheepNotGoats
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
503:
500:
498:
496:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
482:SheepNotGoats
478:
471:
468:
465:
464:
463:
462:
458:
455:
452:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
440:
437:
427:
424:
423:
418:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
380:
379:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
334:
332:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
314:
310:
307:
301:
297:
293:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
275:
274:
269:
265:
264:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
246:
242:
238:
237:Beyond My Ken
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
221:
220:
214:
211:
209:
205:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:Cara Hartmann
86:
85:
82:
81:Cara Hartmann
79:
77:
76:
72:
68:
63:
57:
55:
50:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
784:
781:
760:
751:
747:
726:
721:
702:
683:
671:
664:
650:
644:
642:
630:173.89.18.89
625:
581:
438:
420:
416:
360:
338:
308:
271:
249:
228:
217:
215:
212:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
62:Bigtimepeace
58:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
166:free images
394:basketball
382:Reliablity
361:Daily Mail
283:WP:NOTNEWS
268:WP:NOTNEWS
748:Weak keep
703:Weak Keep
610:• Gene93k
555:concensus
417:it exists
771:contribs
756:WP:NTEMP
737:contribs
673:Relisted
339:deserves
133:View log
71:contribs
722:Comment
586:Nyttend
172:WP refs
160:scholar
106:protect
101:history
46:delete.
707:Carson
626:Delete
582:Delete
439:Delete
422:Errant
390:tennis
357:WP:RSN
309:Delete
287:WP:GNG
273:Errant
219:Errant
208:WP:GNG
204:WP:GNG
144:Google
110:delete
763:wales
729:wales
690:talk
657:talk
187:JSTOR
148:books
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
767:talk
761:Rich
752:weak
733:talk
727:Rich
711:talk
634:talk
614:talk
590:talk
563:talk
524:talk
509:talk
486:talk
406:talk
373:cont
369:talk
347:talk
322:talk
296:talk
258:talk
250:Keep
241:talk
229:Keep
180:FENS
154:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
67:talk
685:DGG
652:DGG
392:or
194:TWL
131:– (
69:|
773:)
769:·
739:)
735:·
713:)
692:)
659:)
636:)
616:)
608:—
605:.
592:)
565:)
511:)
488:)
408:)
375:)
371:•
349:)
324:)
298:)
260:)
243:)
210:)
174:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
65:|
765:(
731:(
709:(
688:(
655:(
632:(
612:(
588:(
561:(
526:)
522:(
507:(
484:(
404:(
367:(
345:(
320:(
294:(
256:(
239:(
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
129:)
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.