Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Couch Guy


 * 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Couch Guy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This appears to be a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources only cover the individual in the context of a single event, the individual otherwise appears to remain a low-profile individual, and the event itself (a man sitting on a couch with three girls and his girlfriend showing up) does not bear encyclopedic significance. As a result, I believe that this article should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is definitely an argument to be made that the event does not bear encyclopedic significance; however, I wrote the page not because it was simply "a man sitting on a couch . . . and his girlfriend showing up" but the fact that it spawned a trend with an audience of several millions and achieved significant media attention as an example of the toxicity of Internet sleuthing. NovumChase (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom ... this is just about as BLP1E as it gets; if not a BLP, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC); edited 17:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment that my creation of the page was intended to cover the viral video and trend (colloquially called "Couch Guy"), not the individual, who would indeed fail to meet the standards of WP:BLP1E. The page was meant to be in description of an event itself—hence the descriptions of parodies and reactions to the video. I have made an edit to improve clarity that the page is about the video colloquially called Couch Guy. NovumChase (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If that is your intent, then I would point towards WP:EVENTCRIT: [r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
 * This clearly falls under the scope of "viral phenomena" and I don't think that there's something further gives them additional enduring significance. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I believe that the article should still be deleted.
 * For clarity's sake, the first sentence of the article at the time of its nomination for deletion read Couch Guy refers to Robbie McCoy, the subject of a TikTok video posted by college student Lauren Zarras on September 21, 2021. I think it was reasonable to read it as being about the person who was the subject of the viral video at that time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is correct and certainly my mistake—it was a failure of clarity on my part. I meant for the article to refer to Robbie McCoy only in the context of being a subject of the Couch Guy video. NovumChase


 * With regard to WP:NOTNEWS, I respectfully disagree with its use to dismiss this particular article—though minor trends should certainly be excluded from Wikipedia, I feel that media coverage has been significant enough to justify the inclusion of "Couch Guy". Just because something is a viral phenomenon does not mean it cannot be included on Wikipedia—well established pages for viral phenomena certainly exist, as with Chewbacca Mask Lady, devious licks and countless others. NovumChase (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per my above comments. I certainly understand the original nomination for deletion, as obscure wording inappropriately suggested that the subject of the article was Robbie McCoy, who bears vastly insufficient notability. However, having fixed the unclear nature of the opening line and clarified that the Couch Guy article refers to the video with over 60 million views and the trend with over 1 billion views and significant media coverage, I feel that deletion is inappropriate. NovumChase (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete in accordance with reasons listed. NovumChase (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I denied this for speedy deletion because it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. However I feel this run afoul of WP:BLP1E. This person appears to be famous for one event and that event is having a look on his face. This is a private individual and the coverage amounts to gossip, and coverage about the gossip. I don't feel it warrants and article, nor should we be participating in this phenomenon. I feel this is exactly the sort of thing our "Subjects notable only for one event" section of BLP was created for.


 * BLP applies even if the primary subject of the article is not the person. That being said the topic of the video and the topic of the guy is all but the same. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's certainly merit to that "gossip, and coverage about the gossip" is undeserving of an encyclopedic entry. However, in creating the page (as I have no connection to nor strong feelings about the subject), I was following what I perceived to be a pattern of long-standing Wikipedia articles covering viral Internet trends, even when about one-time events or individuals otherwise unnoteworthy (such as Dancing Uncle (Sanjeev Shrivastva), Rappin' for Jesus and Damn Daniel), so long as they are sufficiently spread as trends and viral phenomena and receive adequate media coverage. I definitely understand the opposition, but feel that there is definitely precedent for an entry like this.
 * Either way, I'm not particularly keen to die fighting on a hill for "Couch Guy" deserving a Wikipedia article. Just explaining my motivation for writing it and pointing to other examples on Wikipedia. NovumChase (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not run on precedent thankfully. The fact that other comparable stuff exists does not mean that this meets the policy requirements that the community has come to a consensus to enforce. Frankly I would be more inclined to revisited the articles you mention and see if they actually meet our criteria. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true, and completely fair. As stated in my last line above, I was not hoping to use precedent in defense of the article—as I said, I was just explaining why it at first seemed fit to make it. I had seen a pattern of Wikipedia fielding those articles and felt compelled to write on the recent trend.
 * That said, I respect the various reasons for deletion given above and will rescind my keep vote. The consensus is clearly in opposition to the article, and I regret having submitted it. NovumChase (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When I posted that I had not noticed you were the author. I can understand why you felt it was an appropriate topic to write about, Wikipedia's policies are numerous and nuanced. I am sure you made this article entirely in good faith and with the benefit of the project in mind. Regardless I stand by my arguments. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Delete - Viral Video or person, both are not notable enough to be kept as an article.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 02:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)