Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to be: Emo


 * 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 to delete. W.marsh 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How to be: Emo
Contested speedy and prod. Student internet video that cites as its notability mention in Re:Genenerator magazine and on YouTube's top 50 art/animation videos. Unfortunately, I don't think that meets the encyclopedic threshold. Samir धर्म 07:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:WEB, policy is that third-party coverage should be non-trivial. The magazine mentioned in the article is a run-of-the-mill speciality blog, founded in 2005. It certainly doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and it's the only evidence they're willing to offer. A YouTube rank is barely on the radar for notabilty. The system is based on views and user ratings, biasing itself towards whatever can be forwarded around message boards or blogs. WP:FILM is also worth taking a peek at -- this article goes zero for four. Consequentially 07:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Per above. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete (A7) per nom.-- Hús  ö  nd  13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ---Charles 17:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, not a speedy canidate, sources cited (controversial as they may be). In addition, this does meet the requirements for web content. The sources have been cited, it's clearly been redistrubited well beyond the orginal creators websites. I can't help but think this continual cycle of deletion requests isn't started by the numerous vadnals that keep degrading the article since there is plenty of web content that doesn't cite anything and doesn't even get blinked at, like Teen Girl Squad for example.68.63.158.133 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)TIinP
 * Verifiability isn't negotiable. If there are other articles that don't cite sources, then those articles need to be changed to cite sources. (And, for what it's worth, Teen Girl Squad is actually a rather horrible article.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Recently Add a short review by an Entertainment editor and the IMDb article. Since this is pop culture the follow statement of reliability should apply Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not specifically address the reliability required with respect to popular culture such as celebrity gossip, but it is unrealistic to expect peer reviewed studies.
 * Comment This article is also three days old, it's not like I've had months to gather the best information or attract others to help update it.TIinPA 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice; if this is cited by mainstream publications, then I might be interested, but YouTube ranking counts for nothing.TIinPA 20:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:DONOTMAKEANARTICLEABOUTEVERYYOUTUBEVIDEO --- RockMFR 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point, why didn't I think of that. Every 20+ minute video shot in 2002 and still be circulated in a subculture doesn't matter. Please remind me why Numa Numa will be remembered by an encyclopedia.TIinPA 23:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the New York Times devoted print space to it. And Good Morning America gave it air time. So did The Tonight Show. And the Newgrounds site alone has accrued over thirteen million views. Which of those has this movie accomplished? It's all about WP:RS, WP:FILM, WP:WEB, and WP:N. Consequentially 23:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 300,000 unique hits on the orginating site is not 13 million, but still signifigant. The video has spread signifgantly without the creators help. In addition, it's kinda hard to find sources in the 3 days the article has been up since I've had to face one prod, one speedy delete and now this fun process. All on my very first article in my first three days as a user.TIinPA 00:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Google test for the phrase "How to be: Emo"+Billy+movie turns up 12,000+ pages by the wayTIinPA 00:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If by 12,000 you really mean 721, then sure. And if you take out the Wikipedia mirrors, that number drops to 544. Of that 544, the first two are IMDb listings, which cannot establish notability because the site does not follow any kind of inclusion criteria. The next two are internet forums, also no good for WP:N. Then there's Urban Dictionary, a wiki that cannot be used for WP:N, and two YouTube links. Then you get two articles from a non-notable site which states "a friend of mine is making this sweet video," a violation of WP:COI. Shall I go on? Consequentially 00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad I didn't literally use '+' in my search the first time. But to saythis link doesn't have anything important in it's nearly 300 links is untrue. Nothing like this and who knows what those forigen language sites have to say. Lets also be fair and remember I included the main characters to make sure I only got links that are definetly about the movie.TIinPA 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * do not delete As someone who was trying to understand more about the concept of "EMO" subculture, I think that this inclusion added a lot to my understanding. I think it was be a shame to delete it as future wiki searchers would be missing out on a better understanding of the meaning. I also think it is one of wikipedia's strengths that you can find something like the google video link from searching for info on there, it is exactly what you would never get from an alternative encyclopedia source.
 * Delete it with an emo's razor blade: and remember it's down the road, not across the street per nom. Anomo 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept. Some people have valid concerns about this article and I can appreciate that and as such I don't expect a Speedy Keep. However, comments like the one above should not be considered when trying to obtain a genuine consensus.TIinPA 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've heard about it. Toppler 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I've heard about it too, not the point. Elomis 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this has already been submitted to and removed from speedy delete. Since Notibility is the main issue here, I think that fact you've heard of it does in fact matter. Also, if you happen to remeber where you heard about it I'd appreciate the help. TIinPA 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article has been improved and expanded significanly since this AfD started. Once it's existed for more time than it has, perhaps a full week or two, I think it will undoubtbly meet the requirements for web content. TIinPA 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understand the policies we use for notability. Per WP:WEB, internet content is notable if  "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."  What makes a source non-trivial? For that, we can take a peek at WP:RS, which explain reliable sources. The first cite in the article is a link to a web forum. Per WP:RS: "'Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment.The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown.'" That also eliminates the IMDb link as potential indicator of notability. Your second link goes to Danielle Belton Online, the personal blog of an entertainment reporter for the Bakersfield Californian. While this might be an acceptable source per WP:RS, I'm going to argue against it. WP:RS makes exception for self-published sources if "a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." I would not consider Danielle Belton a well-known professional journalist. The fact that she writes for the Bakersfield Californian is somewhat irrelevant, because that newspaper did not give column inches to the movie. To say that she gives the movie notability because she talks about it and she writes for the Californian is an appeal to authority. Her statement was not published by the newspaper, and thus relies only on her authority alone, which isn't exactly that of a national-level entertainment reporter. Consequentially 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. This item has been distrubited through a ton of well know sites, absent of the creator. TIinPA 14:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verifiable with sources cited, including reviews which make it notable. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Meets basic standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. per above. Also, Re:Generator is a well-known arts and culture blog unaffiliated with the creator of the film in the Coachella Valley and is moving to a print version November. 216.250.43.205 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Joseph Archer
 * Keep per above, although not a particularly strong keep. 92,300 Google hits for this exact term, IMDb listing, and some of the references place me in the doubt category (if in doubt, don't delete).  The blog-like references should be removed though, since they are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards.  Yamaguchi先生 08:04, 1 November 2006
 * Keep although barely. My rationale is that it's referenced by Re:Generator, a real (albeit very new) printed magazine which was not published by the author of this article. This one is borderline, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Ariah 18:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The lot of you are willing to pin this on an article that isn't even published yet in a magazine that is barely not a blog? Eh. It would appear the rest of us are outnumbered, but if the entrance exam for questionably notable and unreferenced articles is going to be this easy, the door is wide open for a whole lot of the same. The sum total of this films critical value is expressed on a message board. It has had no theatre run, no published reviews, and no affiliation with a notable producer, director, etc. What on Earth makes it meet the notability requirements, aside from a local scene blogazine? Consequentially 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It did premiere in a theater in 2002 and as soon as I can find documentation to prove that it will be added. TIinPA 23:44, 2 November 2006 (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.