Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassieiswatching


 * 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 delete. Mango juice talk 19:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cassieiswatching
The subject of this article does not have enough notability Criptofcorbin 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) From a technical standpoint, this meets Criteria 3 on the Web Content Notability standards. -Toptomcat 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable (at this point), maybe if it becomes more of an Internet meme it can be re-created. --LiverpoolCommander 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  10:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No notability. --Haakon 11:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Nigel (Talk) 12:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Hello32020 13:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't notice: The first video has caused a treasure hunt and is rapidly gaining in popularity. If there is no article now, it will be almost impossible to add the history later, while now there is enough people out there looking for clues and able to write on this article. This page should stay for the next four weeks to find out if this will be as popular as lonelygirl15 or not. --84.178.84.89 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced article about non-notable four-day-old-potential-internet-meme. Let me also note that the argument that people will forget all about this in a matter of weeks or months, which seems to be what the anon suggests, is probably not the best way to argue notability. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per anonymous user who, as they often do, make good cases for deletion when they think they're defending the article. Danny Lilithborne 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, not notable enough at the moment (although they said that about lonelygirl15) --Tim1988 talk 13:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, not notable enough... • The RSJ • (Main Hub - Rants) 02:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has recently been edited with sourced material and references. I was intrigued by the original article, which lacked many things, and spent the better part of yesterday trying to get to the bottom of this with reliable information from valid (and citable) sources. Right now there is too much evidence to suggest that this may still have an official tie to the lonelygirl15 creators, and the two mentions in the NY Times are notable as such. Many Wikipedia entries have never had that kind of recognition, yet their pages remain. If this is all forgotten in a month, it can be deleted then, no? Insincere 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an intriguing topic that had many, many followers, and their main avenues of discussion and information (lonelygirl15.com and Alissa's board) were both cut off, making it much harder for people to keep up. Plumpy 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic has garnered reoccuring national attention. Other sources of compiled information on the topic are lacking. 18 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.131.56 (talk)
 * Delete per nom; if it gets enough attention, perhaps a spin-offs section can be added to the Lonelygirl15 page. Phaedra777 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Totally. this has captured much of the internet and it's growing still. Possibly the most gamejacked ARG in history. Zazaban 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see why this was nominated, but a lot has changed since then. I believe this will be an important landmark in whatever genre this turns out to be.  It's become an enormous and controversial internet phenomenon. Inkwell 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ARGjacking something that isn't even determined to be an ARG (or even a game) does not make a wikipedia article. Kids playing on YouTube can get their own stand-alone wiki to compile the CIW story, which can be added later as a spinoff from the LG15 wiki article, if warranted.
 * Keep Topic has garnered enough attention, and has newly updated sources and references. Furthermore, it warrants a separate page, as the Creators of lonelygirl15 have since disavowed all connections to this project. Ravensgrace 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Cassieiswatching has been a significant enough part of the story that the creators of LG15 had to address it in a formal announcement, their first since the LG15 story was "outed". Many people running into it online will come here to find out about it, and it has at least a mention in the NYTimes. - dharmabum 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; There are several forums available to document this. It could be added later once it's nature is determined (ARG, hoax, etc.). The current article also does not objectively cover the topic, as it interests a too narrow group of people at this point, and will most likely just be made vehicle for promotion. Vanillaflava 22:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I committed the "highly inappropriate" step of advertising this topic by posting about it to the unfiction forums. Sorry, I didn't realize that was super-frowned upon at the time.  In my defense, my posting (which I can't link to because the forums are down now) encouraged only wikipedians to come here and didn't advocate for creating new wikipedia accounts just to vote.  Also, it seems that people attracted by this posting have voted both ways, not just "keep".  Anyway, sorry.  The forum is down and doesn't appear to be coming back with the old data anytime soon, so it seems my message contributed about four or five votes here, tops.  Plumpy 22:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Cassieiswatching is an immensely popular interactive fiction ARG; most other ARGs have their own wiki pages, sources are cited, and the page is a useful overview of this particular ARG. RichardAdams 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Content should be merged with lonelygirl15 article; maybe make the cassiewatching page into a redirect? Lhall 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Just because it's Internet culture doesn't mean it's not notable. We have articles on far more obscure things without them being challenged as non-notable-because they have nothing to do with Internet culture.


 * Delete I think it deserves a footnote in the lonelygirl15 page, but it is not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. Marsman57 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. I just see this as an advertising it's non notable doesn't ad anything but is just a buncha clips.  Secondly it's taken over a lot of the lonelygirl article just as advertising.  SirGrant 04:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just out of curiousity... advertising what? The "cassieiswatching" YouTube poster has no products to sell, and the Wikipedia entry has been created by fans of hers, not by an involved party promoting the videos, which is drastically different than advertising. The question is whether CIW is notable, not an ad-hoc assesment of whether the article was created purely by CIW's authors to promote it, which is unlikely considering the number of people who have contributed to the article. - dharmabum 10:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

comment Why are wikipedia users so often hostile to internet culture. A artilce about Internet culture is more likely to be deleted than a less notable article about something else.... Zazaban 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Cassieiswatching has been mentioned in th New York Times, and is not nearly as obscure as it was. It is not selling anything. -   23 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Keep -ryan-d 11:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wikipedia has articles about a lot less popular and a lot more specialised topics, like Skiploom or Elaan of Troyius. I believe this shows, that the goal of Wikipedia is not becoming something as big as a print encyclopedia anymore, but something a lot bigger. Anyway: Every article only takes a neglectible amount of database space and if there are people interested in an article, it should be kept. --84.168.10.167 16:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and SirGrant. This is Wikipedia, not Tiger Beat. --Aaron 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Think for a minute, delete voters: LG15's article was initially deleted in a similar vote, until I nominated it for DRV and it got undeleted by an overwhelming majority, and of course since then the article has been hugely in demand. The right and wrong of that situation is clear. Wouldn't deleting this be making the same mistake? I have no doubt about this being notable. The phenomenon has reached such a level that all aspects of it, including spin-offs, are notable as well. Everyking 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think deleting lonelygirl15 was a mistake.  Nor was it a mistake to bring it back.  The notability of the subject changed and thus it was brought back.  That is the way it is supposed to work.  Lonelygirl15 being deleted was not a mistake at all, in fact it was perfect example of the wikipedia deletion procedure working exactly as it was designed to. Criptofcorbin 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope it wasn't working properly in that instance, since she was plainly notable already when that first debate took place. We just had deletionists reflexively voting against something because of the subject: "just some blogger", "a fad" (some people think fads are non-notable), etc. It was more notable the second time around, yes, but it didn't switch from being non-notable to being notable in that time period (about a week, as I recall). It was just a bad decision. Everyking 08:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP** This article goes with LG15, taking it away would leave newcomers to the story researching left with no information on the background of the videos.
 * You remember wrong. It was almost a month apart.  It couldn't have been a bad decision it was just the right decision at the time.  It went from have a majority of people favoring deletion the first time to a unanimous keep the second time.  What was the difference you might ask?  Perhaps what made her more notable was that she appeared in several main stream media news services and put out an additional 7 videos averaging over 500,000 views where her old views were closer to 200,000.  I don't think wikipedians are idiots.

What did I do wrong?: Obvious I made a mistake. This article has been listed for 9 days now. Everything I have read says it should be decided within 5 days. This is the first time I have ever put an article up for deletion and I tried to follow the step by step process, but it seems to me that I must have made an error somewhere. Could someone who knows more about this help me out and get this discuss back on the admins list of articles up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criptofcorbin (talk • contribs) 08:11, September 25, 2006


 * Articles often run over the five day period, especially if they're cases like this where admins may be reluctant to make the call. Everyking 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyking is right; the process of AfD discussion and closing is often messier and slower than it ought to be, and this AfD is just one of those that hasn't been dealt with yet, for whatever reason. (I just looked at the log for September 16, the day you started this AfD, and there's roughly 20 other AfDs there besides this one that haven't been closed yet. Sometimes admins are just slow!) In any case, I looked over everything regarding this AfD, and I can assure you that you personally have done nothing wrong at all; you put this article up for deletion exactly as it is supposed to be done, with zero mistakes. Good job! --Aaron 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; shall we have articles on everything on the Internet? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:37, 25 September 2006 (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.