540:. I'm not necessarily a fan of articles on web memes, but this one seems fairly significant since it is tied to a presidential campaign and has been heavily discussed in major media (which is somewhat surprising). This may be a flash-in-the-pan story, or it may be an enduring aspect of the 2008 campaign which warrants an article. Right now, there is simply no way to tell. I vote to keep for now and to close the AfD with a note that deletion could and should certainly be reconsidered if the meme dies down in the months ahead. I would also note that several of the first few votes seemed to be solely on the basis of lack of notability as established by reliable sources. Now that RS have been provided, I think these editors should reconsider (or simply re-justify) their votes/comments and if not these comments should be given less weight. It is now a substantially different article and "no reliable sources" is no longer a valid delete reason in my opinion.--
1041:. As mentioned above, it is culturally relevant to our times. The reason I created this page is because I saw so much of her on news channels such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News that I was curious what the video was about and if it had relation to people in Obama's campaign. I came to Knowledge (XXG) and was shocked to notice it had no page, so I made one, hoping more people would add to it. This is certainly part of our cultural history and more relevant than many pages you find on Knowledge (XXG). I got 365,000 hits on google for "Obama Girl." Considering the story is a mere 4-5 days old, thats huge. There are plenty of US news sources talking about this topic. Not to mention, I saw a british news paper talking about it recently online when doing a search.
680:- this first internet viral sex video for a candidate is not notable in the slightest. The storage costs and bandwidth costs to the wikipedia must be considered. In fact, not only should we delete this entry, but I think we should delete all future entries that haven't paid their subscription fees. How else will we keep Knowledge (XXG) pure? Also, is there a speedy delete bot that can be used to tag a "Speedy delete" on all new entries? Better safe than sorry I always say. Allowing a keep on this will just encourage people to add new entries to the wikipedia at a time when current entries need a great deal more revising. Is that really what we want to permit?
465:, a celphone video of an old guy raving in a pugnacious manner on a bus, was appareently never even nominated for deletion, and actually became a featured article. Bus Uncle got 1.7 million viewings on Youtube in 3 weeks, or 81,000 per day while Obama Girl received 777,000 viewings in 3 day, or 259,000 per day, over 3 times the viewing rate. I could see deleting it on the basis that per
713:
This is copied from the Main Page of
Knowledge (XXG): "Welcome to Knowledge (XXG), the 💕 that anyone can edit." That's the first thing you see when coming to this site. So yes, that's really what this is. There are certain aspects of the site, such as the fact that there is no time limit, and even
598:
About as weak as humanly possible. However campaign/campaign-related ads do sometimes become of lasting value. This one was mentioned in credible news sources. I think this is just a temporary fad, I despise the word/concept meme, but if by 2008 she becomes a major discussion point in the campaign we
327:
I don't put much stock in "keep for now" arguments; my reading of the relevant guidelines is that a topic has to have demonstrable long-term notability for an article to be created. If an article is kept as "notable for the moment", it's very difficult to get rid of it in the future, since folks will
244:- In just a few minutes I was able to source the contents of this article from multiple non-trivial, third-party and reputable news sources (e.g., ABC News, MSNBC, Fox news). The !votes for "delete" above, therefore, should have their concerns abated. The subject is unquestionably notable, and since
999:
for now. Why is there a deletion attempt right in the middle of the whole news story. It doesn't make any sense. Waiting a few days will help us see how big and notable this really is. There are other possible developments that could occur (Obama responds, conservative people react, poll changes and
303:
constitute long-term notability, but the elections issue, and the nature of that coverage, would speak to at least some potential long-term importance. As those voting "keep for now" have rightly said, it is a current matter of much discussion, and has been noted by a variety of sources. This fits
839:
So any other arguement besides being the primary subject of mulitple non-trivial published works (which this person is, by the way) is not allowed? I could say "Please point to any guideline or policy which says 'If Corvis cornix says something is a non-notable meme and has no references, even if
1051:
as per
Pizzachicken. Right now there are lots of people following up the story on major news channels by checking it out on wikipedia. We might consider deleting later if actually turns out to be non-notable in the long term, but right now this is notable and referenced and it could qualify as
714:
anonymous users (such as yourself) can make changes to articles, that work against the concerns you have raised regarding this particular article. The Obama Girl entry does meet the criteria that
Knowledge (XXG) has established for information inclusion, so it's fine for being here.
582:
arguments of no lasting relevance seem a little absurd when talking about presidential candidates, their campaigns, and supporters--they give rise to books and everything related for decades and decades. Not news does not mean ignore everything that might be in a newspaper as well.
746:
Haha, oh man, I feel a bit dumb now. I should've picked up on the sarcasm based on just how outrageous the comments were (and the reference to
Douglas Adams in the reply). Okay, let me strike my comments above. In my defense, though, I think this serves as a good example of
486:
the meme dies away. There's good reason to believe, beyond mere speculation, that as long as Obama is a viable candidate for the 2008 election, this video is going to keep coming up in discussion, if the current coverage is any indication at all. And of course,
1111:- Considering this video may greatly impact the election, and bring young people to the voting booths, it is certainly as encyclopedia worthy as much of other content on Knowledge (XXG). If pornography stars have Wiki entries, then certainly this ought to.
760:
While it is true I was being sarcastic, I have often thought that "the 💕 anyone can edit" does sound like something out of the pages of HHGTG. And I think the speedy delete taggers will be the first against the wall when the revolution
652:. After I saw the video, Knowledge (XXG) was the first place I looked for additional information. How many candidates get sexy videos made for them? I think that alone makes it notable enough for a site like Knowledge (XXG).
248:, it does not matter that the current level of media coverage will probably not continue. The fact that it has the potential to influence (however subtly) an upcoming U.S. presidential election merits mention here.
278:
and use the third sentence of that section to justify my opinion: "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability."
909:
It depends. If a subject has survived deletion and been declared notable through process than a subject of similar notability could also merit inclusion. I think there is or can be some sense of precedent.
885:
According to an essay--not a guideline, and certainly not a policy. Oftentimes "othercrapexists" is, well, a crappy argument, but sometimes comparisons can be useful, thus I don't think the point that
341:
And it's not. The nature of the current coverage is already examining its potential influence on such long-term issues as a presidential election. This may be a "sudden" phenomenon, but it's not just
914:
got "no concensus" so isn't necessarily a precedent. The other one is listed as a Good
Article so may be a precedent of sorts. (That stated I think the analogy is inexact and I switched to merging)--
299:- I actually fixed a spelling error in that article while working on this, so I've read it pretty thoroughly. It is true, as the page states, that present news coverage does not
212:
finds dozens of articles from various reliable TV and newspaper sources talking about this. Also, CNN has discussed it and, as of right now, has a link on the front page of
110:
620:. The Internet section of that article could be expanded to include more on this video and other Net-related Obama issues. It isn't really worthy of its own article yet.--
980:
521:
690:
Excuse me? Subscription fees for
Knowledge (XXG)? Blocking all new entries? You do realize that Knowledge (XXG) is, by definition, "the 💕 that anyone can edit"? --
840:
the topic is notable and has references and is the subject of mulitiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources, it's still non-notable'", but I won't. --
1096:
8 days the video has been online, plus 253,00 views of 3 closely related videos, and it has received worldwide coverage in the press as shown by Google News
52:
617:
948:
That's true, but not everything that exists is covered extensively in third-party sources. This was. That is our standard for notability.
428:
be remembered, but none of us knows what the future holds. Less important phenomena have been known to persist for an ungodly long time. --
49:
216:
to a segment about this video. So, at least for now, sources do exist to back up its notability. (No telling if it will last, though.) --
491:
was also a
Featured Article in 2004... nobody expected it to be so enduring a web presence, and that wasn't even about a politician :)
1127:
900:
550:
17:
599:
might look silly for the lack of foresight. (I don't think this will happen, but we can't be certain she will be forgotten either)--
455:
454:. It has been the subject of lengthy independent stories in a number of newspapers (not just blogs) such as the Chicago Tribune
961:
783:
727:
504:
394:
358:
317:
261:
83:
78:
700:"the 💕 that anyone can edit" Is that really what it is, because frankly, I'd swear that definition sounds like something
636:. It's making headlines. Will it be making them 10 years from now? Probably not, but it's made enough of a splash that if
87:
409:
non-notable, brief
Internet phenomena. Well, I guess it is noteable for the time-being, but it won't be remembered like
1160:
873:
36:
70:
461:, a notability standard for internet memes. There seems to be some implicit standard for judging such memes, because
488:
410:
1159:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
830:
Please point to any guideline or policy which says "lots of youtube visits means that something is notable."
1123:
1115:
1097:
896:
546:
525:
1119:
1088:
Added New York Times reference to the other reliable sources already in the article. Youtube now shows
1145:
1131:
1103:
1080:
1056:
1033:
1019:
1012:. Why don't we change the name of this article to "Amber Lee Ettinger"? and put obama girl as an aka?
1004:
990:
966:
943:
934:
918:
904:
880:
868:
844:
834:
825:
788:
765:
762:
755:
741:
732:
708:
705:
694:
684:
681:
672:
656:
644:
640:
ever gets mentioned in conversation, the uninformed should be able to turn to WP for enlightenment. -
624:
603:
589:
574:
554:
528:
509:
477:
432:
419:
401:
385:
363:
336:
322:
283:
266:
236:
220:
208:- I don't think this will last and I don't think it's particularly noteworthy, but that being said, a
200:
169:
154:
134:
121:
233:
166:
74:
748:
470:
443:
1042:
949:
940:
877:
831:
771:
738:
715:
492:
382:
346:
305:
249:
118:
1069:
653:
442:
Persons asserting that "It will be very quickly forgotten" are very confident in their personal
1000:
more). It's way too soon to consider it for deletion, which is why, at the moment, I say Keep.
209:
1001:
891:
541:
414:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
458:
563:
466:
178:
147:
1099:. As "memes" go this is more notable than the others which have Knowledge (XXG) articles.
931:
915:
621:
600:
163:
811:
143:
1142:
1065:
641:
182:
451:
447:
329:
275:
245:
1016:
954:
887:
857:
841:
822:
776:
752:
720:
701:
691:
517:
497:
429:
351:
342:
310:
254:
217:
770:
If y'all had read some of the comments I have, you wouldn't have been so sure... :)
1077:
865:
457:, besides the ones already cited. That said, it should be judged by the "rejected"
398:
229:
104:
117:
Non-notable meme. No references. I put a speedy tag on it, but it was removed.
1100:
1073:
1053:
1030:
987:
474:
819:
571:
151:
66:
58:
911:
861:
462:
333:
280:
131:
669:
585:
482:
Certainly. And water cooler stories can only be determined to be such
1015:
The article is about the video and the character, not the person. --
446:. That is not a good basis for deletion of something that satisfies
1153:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
749:
how sarcasm is easy to miss when reading something posted online
469:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper, in keeping with the essay
343:
some guy with a glowing broom handle dancing around the place
1064:
All my reasons are redundant, and previously sated well by
142:- I've got a crush on Obama too, but unless there are some
473:, which calls for deleting mere "water-cooler" stories.
821:. Meets our standards. Notability is permanant, etc. --
520:
was previously nominated for deletion in May 2006. See
100:
96:
92:
890:
has an article is completely irrelevant or invalid.--
213:
424:
You don't know that, do you? I'm not saying that it
522:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Bus Uncle
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
737:All of you need your sarcasm detectors adjusted. -
393:- For the moment it is notable. Anyone remember "
1163:). No further edits should be made to this page.
876:is not a valid deletion discussion criterion.
8:
564:Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid newspaper
979:: This debate has been included in the
618:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008
232:. The author needs to take it there.--
930:- verifiable by reliable sources. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
981:list of Internet-related deletions
566:. There is no evidence of lasting
24:
856:- It's every bit as relevent as
818:Over 1.3 million youtube views
181:, clearly no reliable sources.
395:All your base are belong to us
210:simple search of "Yahoo! News"
146:lurking out there, this fails
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
1052:notable in the long term. --
130:- flash in the pan web meme.
304:our criteria for inclusion.
1141:, the sources say notable.
330:notability is not temporary
276:notability is not temporary
246:notability is not temporary
1180:
411:All your base belong to us
1146:08:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
1132:19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
1104:18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
1081:12:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
1057:08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
1034:23:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
1020:23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
1005:21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
991:11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
967:02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
944:01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
939:Existence ≠ notability.
935:23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
919:10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
905:02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
881:01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
869:22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
845:06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
835:01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
826:21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
789:02:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
766:01:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
756:01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
742:01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
733:21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
709:19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
695:19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
685:18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
673:17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
657:17:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
645:12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
625:02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
604:07:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
590:07:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
575:05:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
555:20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
529:06:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
510:19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
478:19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
433:17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
420:16:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
402:15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
386:14:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
364:17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
337:17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
323:16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
284:15:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
267:13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
237:13:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
228:. Knowledge (XXG) is not
221:12:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
201:11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
170:08:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
155:07:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
135:06:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
122:05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
53:17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
1156:Please do not modify it.
1092:1,503,000 views in the
1045:7:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
381:non-enduring web meme. -
32:Please do not modify it.
48:, defaulting to keep.
148:notability guidelines
704:would have written.
874:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1135:
1118:comment added by
993:
984:
903:
570:notability here.
553:
1171:
1158:
1134:
1112:
985:
975:
964:
959:
958:
952:
894:
812:reliable sources
786:
781:
780:
774:
730:
725:
724:
718:
544:
507:
502:
501:
495:
417:
361:
356:
355:
349:
320:
315:
314:
308:
264:
259:
258:
252:
198:
195:
192:
189:
144:reliable sources
108:
90:
34:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1161:deletion review
1154:
1113:
988:John Vandenberg
962:
956:
955:
950:
784:
778:
777:
772:
728:
722:
721:
716:
505:
499:
498:
493:
415:
359:
353:
352:
347:
318:
312:
311:
306:
274:. I agree that
262:
256:
255:
250:
196:
193:
190:
187:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1177:
1175:
1166:
1165:
1149:
1148:
1136:
1106:
1083:
1059:
1046:
1043:Deltaforce5000
1036:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1007:
994:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
907:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
675:
659:
647:
630:
629:
628:
627:
608:
607:
592:
577:
557:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
437:
436:
435:
404:
388:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
289:
288:
287:
286:
239:
223:
203:
183:Andrew Lenahan
172:
157:
137:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1176:
1164:
1162:
1157:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
998:
995:
992:
989:
982:
978:
974:
968:
965:
960:
953:
947:
946:
945:
942:
941:Corvus cornix
938:
937:
936:
933:
929:
926:
920:
917:
913:
908:
906:
902:
898:
893:
889:
888:Dick in a box
884:
883:
882:
879:
878:Corvus cornix
875:
872:
871:
870:
867:
863:
859:
858:Dick in a box
855:
852:
846:
843:
838:
837:
836:
833:
832:Corvus cornix
829:
828:
827:
824:
820:
817:
813:
809:
806:
790:
787:
782:
775:
769:
768:
767:
764:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
745:
744:
743:
740:
736:
735:
734:
731:
726:
719:
712:
711:
710:
707:
703:
702:Douglas Adams
699:
698:
697:
696:
693:
688:
687:
686:
683:
679:
676:
674:
671:
667:
663:
660:
658:
655:
651:
648:
646:
643:
639:
635:
632:
631:
626:
623:
619:
615:
612:
611:
610:
609:
606:
605:
602:
597:
593:
591:
588:
587:
581:
578:
576:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
556:
552:
548:
543:
539:
536:
530:
527:
523:
519:
518:The Bus Uncle
516:
513:
512:
511:
508:
503:
496:
490:
489:All your base
485:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
434:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
418:
412:
408:
405:
403:
400:
396:
392:
389:
387:
384:
380:
377:
376:
365:
362:
357:
350:
344:
340:
339:
338:
335:
331:
326:
325:
324:
321:
316:
309:
302:
298:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
285:
282:
277:
273:
270:
269:
268:
265:
260:
253:
247:
243:
240:
238:
235:
231:
227:
224:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
202:
199:
184:
180:
176:
173:
171:
168:
165:
161:
158:
156:
153:
149:
145:
141:
138:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
120:
119:Corvus cornix
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1155:
1152:
1138:
1120:24.41.89.140
1114:— Preceding
1108:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1061:
1048:
1038:
1029:as per Deor
1026:
1009:
1002:Pizzachicken
996:
976:
927:
892:Bigtimepeace
853:
815:
810:- Plenty of
807:
689:
677:
665:
661:
649:
637:
633:
613:
595:
594:
584:
579:
568:encyclopedic
567:
559:
542:Bigtimepeace
537:
514:
483:
444:crystal ball
439:
425:
416:Thekittybomb
406:
390:
378:
300:
296:
271:
241:
230:Uncyclopedia
225:
206:Keep for now
205:
186:
174:
159:
139:
127:
116:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
814:coverage.
763:71.39.78.68
706:71.39.78.68
682:71.39.78.68
328:argue that
301:necessarily
162:per above.
932:MisterHand
916:T. Anthony
638:Obama Girl
622:T. Anthony
601:T. Anthony
471:WP:NOTNEWS
234:Edtropolis
67:Obama Girl
59:Obama Girl
1143:Everyking
1090:1,238,686
1066:Pharaonic
912:Numa Numa
862:Numa numa
666:Pharaonic
662:Weak Keep
642:Pharaonic
596:Weak keep
463:Bus Uncle
440:Weak keep
1128:contribs
1116:unsigned
1072:, &
1017:Hnsampat
957:Zahakiel
901:contribs
842:Oakshade
823:Oakshade
816:Almost a
779:Zahakiel
753:Hnsampat
723:Zahakiel
692:Hnsampat
551:contribs
500:Zahakiel
430:Hnsampat
354:Zahakiel
345:either.
313:Zahakiel
257:Zahakiel
218:Hnsampat
111:View log
1086:Comment
1078:Bjewiki
866:Mongrel
515:Comment
459:WP:MEME
413:was. --
399:Art8641
297:Comment
214:CNN.com
84:protect
79:history
1101:Edison
1074:Aranae
1054:Aranae
1031:Donama
1027:Delete
761:comes.
678:Delete
560:Delete
475:Edison
467:WP:NOT
407:Delete
379:Delete
272:Delete
226:Delete
179:WP:WEB
175:Delete
160:Delete
140:Delete
128:Delete
88:delete
1076:. -
1070:Foofy
864:. --
654:Foofy
616:Into
614:Merge
572:MER-C
484:after
397:"? --
152:Haemo
150:. --
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1139:Keep
1124:talk
1109:Keep
1062:Keep
1049:Keep
1039:Keep
1010:Keep
997:Keep
977:Note
928:Keep
897:talk
854:Keep
808:Keep
751:. --
664:per
650:Keep
634:Keep
580:Keep
547:talk
538:Keep
452:WP:N
450:and
448:WP:A
426:will
391:Keep
334:Deor
281:Deor
242:Keep
177:per
164:gren
132:Artw
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
986:--
983:.
899:|
860:or
670:JJL
586:DGG
549:|
526:cab
194:bli
167:グレン
109:– (
1130:)
1126:•
1068:,
895:|
668:.
562:-
545:|
524:.
332:.
197:nd
191:ar
188:St
185:-
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
1122:(
1094:6
963:►
951:◄
785:►
773:◄
739:N
729:►
717:◄
506:►
494:◄
383:N
360:►
348:◄
319:►
307:◄
263:►
251:◄
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.