Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David After Dentist


 * 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. There is a strong consensus that this video is notable since it has received significant and sustained coverage in reliable sources as is required by Notability and Notability (events). (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

David After Dentist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary article on a topic of questionable notability. —Entropy (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it deserves to be there - there are many "David After the Dentist" references in popular culture and people may seek out an explanation of the reference.Tullyis (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets notability requirements with press coverage over 5 years. Loads of web content: Washington Post, Business Insider, CNN, Gawker, Time, HLN (Time Warner) Featured on TV shows from Bill O'Reilly to Tosh.0 It's still getting media attention in 2014, over 5 years later: Entrepreneur, NY Daily News, ET Online. There's lots of coverage there not just about the video but what the family did afterwards, responses to the video, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Colapeninsula's comment. The article clearly demonstrates and surpasses the WP:GNG and WP:Source thresholds. EBstrunk18 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm curious if there are any relevant guidelines here. Is there anything like WP:Notability (viral videos). Other viral videos do appear to merit a page (e.g. Charlie_Bit_My_Finger). Granted that's a WP:Otherstuffexists argument. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG comes to mind. Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Epeefleche - Care to suggest which WP:GNG guideline you feel this article meets? NickCT (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which GNG guideline? GNG is itself a guideline.  That's what the last "G" stands for.  It is a guideline that states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...." On this page, above, and in a google search of the subject, one can easily see such coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I which have said "which WP:GNG criteria". re "significant coverage in reliable sources". Would you care to identify what you feel represents "significant coverage in reliable sources". NickCT (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unfortunately, we're probably obligated to keep these articles given the media attention they generate from reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep - Looking over GNG. I don't see which criteria this article meets. None of the cite on the article currently look all that reliable. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Following comments from Ninja I now see and acknowledge significant coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NRVE, the sources in the article are immaterial. There are thousands of hits in reliable sources from a simple Google search, and there are continuing articles written today that are cataloged on Google News.  The first page of results has enough reliable sources to write an entire article.  I wish every topic were so easy to research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @NinjaRobotPirate - There are a lot of "moderate" quality sources here (i.e. NY Daily New, Gawker), but I'm failing to see any mention in major mainstream media outlets. I'm also failing to see mention in any significant publication. NickCT (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know where you're coming from, and I'd agree with you if those were the only sources. However, this has received extensive coverage in The New York Times .  You can find similar amounts of coverage in other newspapers.  Not every one of those articles is a full-length piece on the video, but they all include more than trivial mentions.  Just do a Google search on CNN, and you'll get several pages more.  Even the Wall Street Journal has several pages worth of hits.  Have you even done a Google search? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - "Have you even done a Google search?" - Google search? What's that........? (sarc mark) Of course I Google searched but I didn't go any any "site:" searches. You apparently have. Well done. Someone should really add a couple of those refs to the article to avoid this coming to AfD again. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant amount of secondary source discussion over a sustained period of time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2014 (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.