Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie the Unicorn (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Taking into account WP:NOTAVOTE, the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping the page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie the Unicorn
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Because a previous AfD led to deletion, I think I need to bring this back to AfD, but I'm not taking a position because the last paragraph has 3 reasons to keep that were not present in the version that got deleted 2.5 years ago. Keep it civil, folks; the previous AfDs had a lot of drama. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Setting aside issues of notability, the article appears to be unverifiable. Google news search comes up dry as far as appropriate sources.  Google search has over 700,000 hits for "Charlie the Unicorn" and yet I don't see any reliable sources in the first 5 or 6 pages.  This is a situation where I would argue that common sense should trump guidelines regarding notability but verifiability is a different matter and one on which we cannot compromise.  If verifiability can be demonstrated I will be the first to argue for an exception regarding notability guidelines, let me know.  I am a bit puzzled and strongly believe that this ought to be included in the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - Verifiable how? That it's one of the most watched videos of all time? YouTube ranks these videos on the website, links are in the footnotes. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable YouTube video. Referencing on this article is extremely poor, as it was in previous versions. The coverage alluded to in Salon is nothing more than a repost of the video, and the Gawker reference (about the Weezer video) is again, just a link to the original video. These are trivial mentions, at best. The others are primary sources or dubious quality (a fan wiki page?). As before, I don't believe there's been any significant change in subject's notability (even the Weezer video is just a fleeting background shot) - lots of Google search hits due to common terms, but nearly all are trivial mentions on blogs or Newgrounds/YouTube-type links - usually just a link to the video and nothing more. No major citations in first 100 results or so. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This is misleading. The gawker article is not just a link to the video, it's an article about Weezer using youtube to capitalize on extremely popular videos, and then links to those videos. It references both the fact of it being in the music video, and its importance to the youtube community by including it among the most popular of all time. Similarly, the salon blurb is not "just a link". A link isn't a paragraph about the subject, and then a link. This is "Just a Link". - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - hardly misleading. The Gawker mention doesn't give any specifics about Charlie the Unicorn, it simply says "hey, they included a bunch of stuff, here's some links" - that's a textbook trivial mention, as is (no matter your opinion) the Salon "blurb". Look, we get it, you like it, but the current sourcing on the article is extremely poor - and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Instead of trying to discredit my argument, try coming up with some legitimate references. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Completely misleading. Enough mentions in good sources, even minor (though they aren't minor) amount to an overall notability. Moreover, I know you don't like it, but instead of removing valid citations as advertising (!?) try doing something constructive. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Simple mentions, even in reliable sources, do not equal notability. Nor does, as we've discussed on the article talk page (and you've been informed by an administrator), your addition of sales links or forum posts. Significant coverage is the key here, and this topic does not have it. As for my "liking it", I've never seen the thing - I don't need to have for this discussion, as the level of reliable references simply does not exist to support an article for this thing. And since you're trying to discredit *my* argument, I see no reason why you should have a problem with me doing the same to yours. That is what this discussion is about - it's not a vote - it's an argument about which position (keep or delete) is most appropriate. Quit trying to make this personal. It's not. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE I've found an entire clothing line at major retailer hot topic based on Charlie the Unicorn. That alone should meet the basic threshold for notability. http://search.hottopic.com/clothing/Charlie%20The%20Unicorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs)
 * Shun the disbelievers! Shuuuuuuuun... no, really, delete; an encyclopedic article about this is not possible right now. It doesn't bear anything more than perhaps a passing mention in the List of Internet phenomena article. JuJube (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent verification of notability. The references are either all incestuous, or just point to the video itself. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (lulwut) They're all on sale 1/2 price so what does that tell you? Drawn Some (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That the people at Hot Topic are desperate to sell something else than bondage pants and Invader Zim merchandise? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on the store is irrelavent, as is the purchase price. They are a major retail outlet. They sell the stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.51.254 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

note one particular editor keeps removing citations from the article itself, and is clearly trying to hijack this article's chances. If you don't like a source, then vote not to keep, but edit warring an article already in afd is not productive. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 17:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria" and then goes on "3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster..." We can agree youtube doesn't meet this criteria. However, most of what the detractors are citing as trivial mentions actually satisfy notability due to this guideline. The Salon AND Gawker (which are independent and respected) pages DISTRIBUTE this content. They don't link, you can watch the video itself on those pages, meeting the criteria. Because web content must only meet ONE of the listed criteria, and distribution on these sites meets the criteria, it is notable, per the web content guideline ALONE. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent, third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this youtube video article thingy, for which no reliable sources establish any notability. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, nor a fan-site.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 24 google news hits the Unicorn%22&cf=all, including the TIME magazine. Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I checked the google news hits - these are no more than trivial coverage, and in most cases are nothing more than a passing mention. I have been unable to find any reliable independent sources with more than trivial coverage, so this doesn't appear to meet the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * note This is frustrating. Two completely seperate issues are being confounded. Replies that amount to the sources being unreliable are completely false. The sources are fine - youtube is a fine source for the video's rank, views, etc (over 40 MILLION on one account alone), the weezer article is a fine source to show what the artice says, that is, that Charlie is in the music video. Hot Topic's own website is a fine SOURCE for whether they carry an entire line of Charlie clothing. The only ARGUABLE point is whether these facts establish notability. Even passing mentions in major media outlets: gawker, salon.com, time's online magazine, coupled with a major retailer carrying an entire line of clothing, PLUS inclusion in a major rock band's video, AND the enormity of views on youtube, DO establish baseline notability. Asking for more is far to rigorous, and out of the norm for most articles on minor topics. -24.130.51.254 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 24.130.51.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep There are links to major news sources that mention it. So I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't think it notable.   D r e a m Focus  22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets notability in that it is references in Time as well as notable online journals such as Gawker and Salon.com. Could do with a bit of a clean-up though. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Internet memes operate a bit differently and need to be researched on page views as well as real world impact. The youtubes own ranking list include:
 * 53 - Most Discussed (All Time)
 * 13 - Most Discussed (All Time) - Comedy
 * 55 - Most Viewed (All Time)
 * 6 - Most Viewed (All Time) - Comedy
 * The article itself needs clean-up and Here's a Google news search which has at least a handful of sources that can add context to the article. here's two book mentions and even a hit on Google Scholar. Charlie the Unicorn may not be the stuff of high art as much as low camp but sources do seem to exist and teh article doesn't seem to be terribly harmful in any way to suggest regular editing is the correct action. -- Banj e  b oi   23:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination - short has received no significant coverage in independent third party reliable sources that I can see - nearly all mentions and references are trivial at best - most only ackowledge that the thing exists, not much more. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Full disclosure, I am the primary author of this article, but am in no way associated with the animation, or anyone involved therewith. Wikipedia has specific notability requirements for web content here.
 * You left out this part of criterion 3: except for trivial distribution. The distribution by Salon.com for example is incidental, not deliberate and could be considered trivial. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely false. The "except trivial distribution" refers specifically to websites which have no editorial oversight such as youtube. How in the world can you say the salon.com page is not deliberate? It's part of their videodog section, and is completely deliberate. That makes no sense. The referenced pieces are all distributed by the writers of the columns themselves, not uploaded by random users such as with youtube or newgrounds, which would be trivial, as anyone can do so. -24.130.51.254 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC) — 24.130.51.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. It really doesn't matter whether it has been watched by a lot of bored ten year olds on YouTube, or if some other websites have linked to the video. How are we meant to write an article without coverage in reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2009 (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.