Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopter Shark


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter Shark

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable photoshopped image hoax. One of thousands of such fake images that circulate the internet. All that is asserted is that the photograph was widely circulated, so are viagra ads. There is no indication in the article or any of its sources that this hoax was accepted by anyone, or has any significance on internet culture, or anyone for that matter. I seek the opinions of others on this matter. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep well, Nigerian scam has its own article, and the shark meme even has an article in National Geographic. It meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, huh? The NG article is a denial that it was them. 419 scams have touched the inboxen of most of Western civilisation and the bank balances of more than a handful. Apples and elephants here. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment I am not quite sure what you are trying to convey. It doesn't have to be real to have an article, otherwise we wouldn't have the Category:Hoaxes --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nigerian Scam is a world wide scam that affects thousands of people and is much more notable than a stupid internet prank. If it's notable, which it is not, merge it into the Nat geo or Email hoax articles. However, I feel the article should be deleted. There's tonnes of email hoaxes going around, just because it's in a Nat geo article, does that mean they're encyclopedic? Not particularly... Spawn Man 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oddly enough, it is the very definition of WP:notability. You have the wrong concept of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to photo editing just like that picture about the "scientist predict a computer in 2004" picture that actually is of a submarine control panel and some real estate sales guy. J I P  | Talk 08:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge might be worthwhile if the copyright on the image were actually correct, but it isn't (the three-image composite was lifted from NG, the shark image is copyrighted and the helishark is unattributed). Chris Cunningham 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Just one of a seemingly infinite number of silly photos that get passed around online.  NG did deny it in print, true, but their mention wasn't substantial enough to source an article upon, nor is it notable enough for one anyway. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How is an article in National Geographic not "substantial enough". The definition of notability and verifiability is that all the information in the article can be confirmed in the sources. You seem to imply notability is "biggest, or best". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability |seems to have been established by reliable sources clarifing that the image was a hoax involving one of Charles Maxwell's photos. Fosnez 14:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is, does simply being debunked by a reliable source a sign of notability? This articles sources do not seem to indicate it has much effect on the world, the articles simple say it was fake. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not invoking WP:ILIKEIT but I actually had this come through my inbox and had to politely inform the person that it was fake. Pointed them to Snoops and sent them on their way. I think the fact that National Geographic took the time to debunk the fake and interview the author of the original photo signifies enough notability. Fosnez 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how it's notable enough to have it's own article. Interesting image which got a lot of attention but it's not notable enough IMO.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If your friends are annoyed by e-mails of the "Helicopter Shark" (or the post 9/11 picture of the guy on the observation deck of the WTC with a jet approaching in the background).... they'll really be pissed off at you when you e-mail them an article about the Helicopter Shark. Why not write an article about those funny postcards that are all black and have the caption "_______ at night"? Mandsford 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article provides reliable and verifiable sources from The New York Times and National Geographic documenting the hoax, something that can't be said for all of the alternatives cited by some of our deletion-minded editors. A Google News Archive search using the terms "San francisco" helicopter shark photo found dozens of other sources available about this photo. The reliable and verifiable sources in the article easily satisfy the Notability standard. Alansohn 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do any of the sources give any kind of indication that this hoax was significant? Or is it simply a collection of refutations and mentions? I have no doubt that we can verify the hoax actually happened, but did it have any significance worth of encyclopedic mention? (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that sources have to include a sentence that states "Subject of Article is significant". Notability states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and defines "Significant coverage" to mean "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Both sources provided in the article from the NY Times and National Geographic clearly meet the significant coverage standard as the sole subject of each of the cited articles. Alansohn 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree, the fact that it was mentioned by National Geographic and the NY Times is all the is required to establish notability. Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content and Notability_is_not_temporary - Fosnez 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above; the simple fact that this was covered in multiple highly significant publications is enough to determine its notability. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete just another shooped meme. This is not memeopedia. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is a "shooped meme" and why is it an acceptable excuse to delete an article. Here on Wikipedia we require references to violations of real Wikipedia policies as a basis of making policy decisions. We don't delete articles because they violate the WP:SHOOPEDMEME policy somebody made up in school one day. As the article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, you need to present a valid argument that Wikipedia policy requires its deletion. Alansohn 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shooped = Photoshopped. Just another shooped meme = no evidence of lasting cultural or historical significance.  I don't think anyone else was in any doubt what my reasoning was, but I think that WP:SHOOPEDMEME is a cool idea and I'll get right on it. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn may legitimately be wide-eyed over a spelling error, but his comment looks suspiciously nasty. Eusebeus 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously. Unnotable internet meme; reliable sources are a canard - NYT does not equal notable.
 * What's the spelling error? I'm a tad suspicious of your actions, as well. Alansohn 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you quote some policy that is in violation? It appears to meet Notability in that the "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Why the need to disparage the New York Times and National Geographic? If they have their own articles, they are reliable and well known sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this insignificant tidbit. We don't need Wikipedia to chronicle everything that's ever been on the internet- the net itself does this.  Friday (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep; notability requires multiple independent reliable secondary sources; several such are cited, including a New York Times article and a National Geographic article, both specifically about this faked photo; it's not here because it's an internet meme, but because it's a NOTABLE internet meme per WP:NOTE. I've had little luck getting articles deleted when they lack any such references, so I don't understand why this one is being challenged on the basis of notability when the evidence is clear. Articles about => notability; Punkt! Dicklyon 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Coverage in multiple independent sources is widely seen as a bare minimum requirement for encyclopedic notability, but having sources does not mean that the article must be kept. This is why we have AFD.  Not everything that's been in a newspaper belongs in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What other notability criteria are there? Did I not read all of WP:NOTE? Dicklyon 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just found two books that talk explicitly about this image, and added a bit about that (see refs 3 and 4 with links to book pages); so I change from keep to strong keep. Dicklyon 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't complete the edit of ref 4 when I said that; finally got it in now. Dicklyon 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously not the only example of its kind but probably the most notable per comments above, mentioned in context both at Hoax and Photo editing as an illustration of the impact of image manipulation on popular culture. I thought at first that an extended caption on the image page would do, but wider issues are addressed in the article, saving space in others and hence making it worthy of a keep. mikaultalk 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as substantial reliable sources are currently listed in the article. This is the most notable meme that comes to mind when I think of photoshop-created images.  Yamaguchi先生 00:50, 16 September 2007 (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.