Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out 2


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. "Keep" arguments asserting that the article is properly sourced to meet WP:N were never successfully countered by those voting "Delete". — Ocat ecir T 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seriously, seriously non notable topic. G 1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Previously nominated for deletion, kept: Articles for deletion/Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out


 * Keep. This article is sourced, including several reputable newspapers. It's not the most important of topics, but I'm not convinced that it fails our notability criteria.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  09:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, assuming this survives the AFD, I think the title should certainly be changed. Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  09:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - definitely appears to be notable; it needs a bit of a trim, if you'll pardon the pun, but I think it's a good example, and is well-sourced. --Haemo 09:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Trivial subject, and I'm averse to further publicising what was actually a clever piece of viral marketing. But unfortunately too many reputable sources have commented on it to leave any doubt about notability. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Nn video-ad. Eusebeus 12:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate notability. Alansohn 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced to the Toronto Star, the CBC, CTV and Canada's Paper of Record, the Mop and Pail - in most (all?) cases, this exact video and the public reaction is the focus of the article. Wily D 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect —  Inasmuch as the video was proven to be a hoax in the first place, it's only real notability remains as an internet meme. Concur with User:Esebeus that it should point to List of Internet phenomena which already includes this.  Jody B talk 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The references to newspapers and mainstream news sources indicate that it is a notable topic that has warranted coverage by the press. Consequently, it appears to be notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article.  Dr. Submillimeter 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. per Eusebeus. Not every viral marketing advertisement needs an encyclopedia article. Not everything mentioned for a short while on TV or in newspapers needs an encyclopedia article, since Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Edison 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not every internet phenomena needs an encyclopaedia article - to be sure. But are you suggesting that ones that are the main topic of coverage in many independant, mainstream sources are inappropriate for coverage?  Is there some secret standard that we hold internet phenomena to that we don't require of any other subject? Wily D  16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For me, the issue here is that this was a "flash-in-the-pan" item that got news coverage briefly. It's just another example of a widely viewed YouTube vidclip that birefly was the day's filler in papers. It's better covered as one of many than on its own. JJL 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect per above. May also be suitable for a redirect to the company/product page (seeing as how it exists).   Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above, before WP becomes just a list of YouTube favorites. JJL 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this doesn't seem like a likely danger - there are a lot of other categories, and maybe a dozen youtube videos of this notoriety. ~10 Internet Phenomena Articles/~1 million articles total doesn't seem likely to overwhelm the place.  Or am I crazy? Wily D  21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Sourced from reliable sources, but per the concern above me, I dunno.  Kwsn (Ni!) 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has been through one AFD before, and time has passed since it. Honestly, not much has been changed at all in the article. It has a lot of information that is cited, but this is just a one-time deal video, that got some press in Toronto and the gals hit the talk show circuit. Overall, I don't think it deserves an article. If there is an article this could redirect to, such as that of the gal who stared in the video, that could be an option, but if no option exists, then lets delete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Overall, I don't think it deserves an article. IOW, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Daniel Case 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; doesn't pass the ten-day test, let alone the ten-year one. Tizio 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid criterion for deletion. But I grant it does make you sound downright clever. Daniel Case 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is a valid one. I'll quote from the notability guidelines:  "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability."  While it may not mention except numbers of days, the notability guidelines do validate that vote quite nicely.  Bushytails 06:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "exact" numbers of days? But I digress ... This was more than a short burst. This was two weeks worth of coverage. It is still being referenced in news stories:, and (that last from outside Canada). In fact, those last two links make it pretty clear that within the world of viral Internet marketing it has achieved considerable notability. Daniel Case 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as bad faith nom. I am getting very tired of these efforts to delete things that a cabal of users wants to memory-hole from the culture. It was a notable viral marketing effort that I researched thoroughly when I created it precisely because I knew it would be irresistible bait for today's punk deletionists otherwise. Apparently they get even more pissed off when you actually produce something up to WP standards. So little will be added to it? How can you say that for sure? And if that's the case, we have no business having articles on individual episodes of TV shows ... and I think as much creative effort went into this as into any episode of The Sopranos. At least that I was able to document. If I hadn't created this article the way I did when I did it, someone else would have and we would have had a crappy subpar article to clean up and source. A redirect is an intolerable compromise IMO ... it's about as meaty as Bus Uncle, Dog poop girl, Star Wars Kid and other Internet phenomena that we have separate articles on.  I cannot see any real reason this is being nominated save an attempt to make what is notable reflect some editor's idea of what should be notable in his or her ideal world, aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and thus deleting it would be inherently POV. I would like to delete Paris Hilton from reality too, but she's notable by any objective standard and unfortunately deleting the article on her would not change reality. At least not yet (when are we going to get that feature in MediaWiki? :-)) Daniel Case 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus Uncle was a major real-life (i.e. not fictional) event that has been cited as a source of cultural change and had a significant effect on the planet. Star Wars Kid has been involved in lawsuits, parodied hundreds of times, and had at least some effect on the planet.  Dog poop girl was again a real incident that incited debate on cyber bullying, gathered death threats, etc, and we don't have an article on it.  This faked video of an actor doing a bad job throwing a tantrum...  Nada.  No effect on the planet.  No issues raised.  No commentary, social change, long-term effects, or anything else.  The world would be no different had it not existed.  Not notable, never has been, never will be.  Bushytails 06:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I don't live in Hong Kong, and Bus Uncle had no significant effect on me ... I didn't know about it till I read the article, in fact. But that certainly doesn't mean it should be deleted. You tried to make this argument, as well as that tiresome string of "nada yada yada" last time and nobody seconded it. If that's all you can come up with this time, just consider the nomination closed (except this time we'll have a result of a more firm keep, after which I would consider other nominations to be bad faith). It seems you're focusing on the fact that this wasn't a real event but a staged one. So what? It was watched, widely discussed and the subject of ably-documented multiple non-trivial news coverage, which makes its authenticity or lack thereof irrelevant. We have articles about plenty of things that strutted and fretted their hours upon the stage and then were heard no more. I didn't see your logic in February and I don't see it now. Daniel Case 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficiently notable as a marketing attempt. (p.s. Daniel Case - 'dog poop girl' doesn't have a separate article anymore, jsut a redirect, so maybe you shouldn't cite that example...Canuckle 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that afterwards. Daniel Case 03:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the statement that this AFD nomination was made in "bad faith," it isn't true. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite having deletionist beliefs, I tend to think that once should be enough if the article was pretty complete the first time around. I don't see what's changed since the first vote. The first nom was an emotional reaction to seeing this on the Main Page under DYK; but it went into more detail about why the nominator thought it shouldn't be kept. Daniel Case 03:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep though with the plot considerably shortened (and I think the same is appropriate for many of the articles on individual video series). DGG 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable (and brilliant) viral marketing initiative. Mnm1108 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC) — Mnm1108 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I couldn't have said it better myself. Daniel Case 03:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete. As I predicted when listing it for deletion the first time, absolutely nothing came of it, it's still not notable, and it's still just some random advertisement.  Bushytails 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Daniel: You are applying WP:IDONTLIKEIT too broadly.  By your definition, absolutely anyone who ever votes delete on anything can be dismissed by pasting that link.  That is about not liking the topic of the article.  Nothing else.  "Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the space shuttle because I don't like spacecraft" is different than "Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about the space shuttle because it's non-notable and not encyclopedic."  And, if you're going to make personal attacks against other users (I count at least three above), what does that say against any faith you're assuming of others?  Lastly, I already answered your opinion about why I nominated it for deletion the first time, maybe you should go back and re-read it, before making false statements? Bushytails 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Non-notable and unencyclopaedic", especially for articles that meet and exceed our criteria for notability (i.e. ones that are objectively notable) is usually a codeword for "I don't like it".  Especially when "nn" is verifiably false, "unencyclopaedic" is very close to "I don't like it" anyhow.  The problem is nobody is going to say "Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about gravity because I don't like gravity" - they actually say "Non-notable physics cruft, unencyclopaedic". Wily D  12:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said again. I have complained about this nomination as vigorously as I complained about the last one because, when I first started doing newpage patrol in 2005, things like this that met standards and justified their inclusion were speedy kept, or not even nominated to begin with. The last time this was nominated, Bushytails conceded the point but hung on to that one shred of policy which says that we don't necessarily have to keep things that meet the notability standard. That's really grasping for straws, and it makes IDONTLIKEIT look even more likely as an explanation for this nomination and his. I have found plenty of articles about marginal subjects that were sourced properly that I didn't nominate because the creators took time to understand policy and decided to be editors, not just fanboys. We should not punish editors, regardless of their experience or lack thereof, with extremely subjective deletion nominations as long as they have tried to demonstrate sufficient notability by our standards. I feel that I researched and developed this article to those standards, and I would point to it as an example of how articles about Internet phenomena should be done (Maybe, I daresay, that's why it's being nominated? Someone doesn't want the example around? I mean, and I speak from lots of AFD experience, it is so much easier to get an article about something like this deleted when it's started by a brand-new editor, cites no sources, doesn't use encyclopedic language and isn't properly formatted. But when it isn't ...) Daniel Case 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, sources say notable. Everyking 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - I was just about to nominate this article. Delete per nom, non-notable topic.--Bryson 20:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to reconcil that with the fact that it passes WP:N, and is therefor notable? Wily D 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is a youtube video, that got brief time on TV and in newspapers considered so important in an encyclopaedia? --Bryson 21:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor does it pass WP:N... read the part about articles with only temporary notability belonging on wikinews, not here.  "a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability" for example.  Bushytails 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, I refer you to more recent coverage discussing the impact of the video:, and Daniel Case 14:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did anybody argue it has long-term notability? Who would think that? Of course it's only briefly notable to the world at large, but in Wikipedia terms, notable once is notable forever. Everyking 05:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think in all fairness the "long-term notability" is very difficult to speculate on. It's certainly at the forfront of a phenomena with an uncertain future - I could definitely see this going "either way".  In this case NOT#paper easily trumps NOT#newspaper, since the second is very uncertain. Wily D  13:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.