Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dramatic Chipmunk


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dramatic Chipmunk

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources are YouTube videos, Know Your Meme and T-shirt vendors. Not one of those is a reliable source. Article is nothing but trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:WEB. Has received coverage on cnet.com and Time.com, but both are just passing mentions.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 17:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps merge back to List of Internet phenomena? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. That'd just mean some n00b would revert the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case there's nothing easier than protecting the redirect. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why we have watchlists, and redirects that users turn into redirects are tagged (Special:AbuseFilter/342), which makes them easier to spot on RecentChanges and the watchlist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't really see the fuss here. Famous YouTube video, like Keyboard Cat which has 11.6 million views compared to Dramatic Chipmunk's 25.6 million. It is not always easy to source Internet memes, but the Dramatic Chipmunk easily qualifies as one of the best known. There is useful information in the article about the background to the making of the video.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, try again. Saying "but it's notable" and "it has a lot of views" are NOT VALID ARGUMENTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then, but where would you put this information instead? I seem to recall repeated criticism of your policy on deletion during numerous failed attempts to become an admin.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, Ianmacm - TPH's RFAs are not relevant here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to Dramatic chipmunk. This is easily the most famous prarie dog of all time: huffington post cnet - shall I go on? TPH, please withdraw this per wp:SNOW. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you figure snow when it was 2-2 at the time? C T J F 8 3  chat 23:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep – Per Ianmacm and ErikHaugen; "weak keep" due to most of the article being bulleted trivia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, that video was stupid, but plenty of coverage including CNET and People magazine. C T J F 8 3  chat 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a youtube phenomenon is not a criteria of WP:NF, and indeed many fail meeting inclusion guidelines... but a film having wide critical commentary in multiple reliable sources is a criteria of WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is not ideal in its current form, but it does contain some useful sourced information about the background to the video. Cleanup is a better option than deletion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:31, 29 December 2010 (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.