Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Atkin

I would like to renominate this article for deletion. I think hindsight is 20/20 here and while this individual did have 15 minutes of fame at one point in time it is safe to say he doesn't meet the requirements for Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasant56 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hugh_Atkin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines. I feel compelled to propose the deletion of this article under Wikipedia's guideline of People only notable for one event. For those who aren't familiar with the context, Hugh Atkin created a video called the Barack Roll which is a Barack Obama related parody of the Rick Roll phenomenon that was released during the 2008 Presidential election.

Atkin's video, while funny, is really just a parody of a video that is essentially a parody of something else. Viral videos aren't uncommon, with new ones being released monthly. With a view count of 6 million, the Barack Roll is hardly the most popular video, with videos such as Star Wars Kid attaining over 900 million views. Still, it is one of the few that have a dedicated article for its creator (even though the video wasn't considered notable enough to have a dedicated article for itself). Ultimately, keeping this article might set a precedent for all viral video creators to try and get an article on Wikipedia in the future. While I have no qualms with the videos themselves appearing on Wikipedia, having biographies of the creators might begin to dilute the quality of the website.

Secondly, while his video was notable at one point in time, combined with the decline of the popularity of the "Rick Roll", since the election, the popularity of video has dwindled further. As the video falls more and more into obscurity, there is less of a need to have an article about its creator.

Lastly, looking at the sources I feel his fame seems to be localized to Australia, and most of his supporters seem to be from the region. While he does have a few other sources, they are mainly political blogs from the 2008 election that mention the video, and most just highlight Atkin in passing.

Ultimately I feel that since the video wasn't notable enough to have its own article, it creator isn't notable enough to have his own either. Doing so will only set a precedent for other one-off video creators in the future. Further, the the video's popularity has diminished greatly since the election, and it seems that all notoriety was limited to the election period. Lastly, while Atkin video did get some buzz from political blogs at the time, most of his popularity came from Australia where he was considered a local celebrity for creating it. Vasant56 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We dont need an article for each internet phenom; these videos might be notable but the person isn't. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, plenty of reliable sources. Incidentally, notability does not come with an expiration date. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100% that notability does not come with an expiration date, and we should be careful not to make that mistake. With that said, however, hindsight and time lets you re-evaluate situations and allow you to judge notability in terms of the 'big picture' :-) Vasant56 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note I noticed that video itself that has been used to justify Atkin's notability was up for discussion a few months ago and was deemed not notable enough to have it's own entry on Wikipedia. The article was subsequently merged into another article listing different parodies on the Rick Roll. If the video itself isn't considered worthy of its own article, is its author? Vasant56 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has plenty of sources indicating ongoing notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only one of the third-party sources is an article about Atkin.  WP:N requires multiple third-party sources.  Powers T 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - grrrr, I hate memes and viral videos but this guy comes extremely well sourced and cited. Blast! § FreeRangeFrog 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - grrrr, I hate memes and viral videos but this guy comes extremely well sourced and cited. Blast! § FreeRangeFrog 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes, there are multiple third-party sources, but they are about the video, not the person. Need more coverage about the person to justify creation of a separate article. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Barack Roll. There are enough 3rd party articles to justify an article on the Internet meme and it would seem there's enough info in them to include stuff about the meme's originator. So let them be in the same article. Ancemy (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rick Roll. THF (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if all those news sources mentioned his video, and not him at all, there is still his television appearance. "He appeared on ABC television political program Insiders on 16 March 2008 as part of the "Talking Pictures" segment.[4]" So he had at least that coverage of him.   D r e a m Focus  03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it was an appearance. I'm not sure whether that qualifies as "coverage".  Powers T 03:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not the major network ABC. Vasant56 (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, Atkin is Australian, and ABC is a major network there. Powers T 12:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I agree with that. I only meant that people might confuse it for the American Broadcasting Company. While the election was a US election, it looks like most of the 'coverage' on him didn't break the Australian border. Vasant56 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakest of Weak Keeps, most of the coverage seems to be about the videos rather than the person, but Atkin seems to have made enough of them to get just enough coverage himself that he probably crosses the WP:N bar. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC).
 * But if his video itself isn't worthy of a wikipedia page is he? Perhaps we just just mention him in passing in the Barack Roll's section on the Rick Roll page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.148.114 (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say he's probably better known for the Kevin Rudd/Chairman Mao video. I know I've seen and laughed at that, but not at the Barack/Rickroll one.  So a redirect would be inappropriate, because there's no one good target to redirect to.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep - ongoing notability and article doesn't mention the Kevin Rudd satires during hte last election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seem to be enough references to demonstrate notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, which ones, exactly? Powers T 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to a section of Rickroll, or alternatively delete. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite the cited sources, the person is clearly not notable, and his video is only notable enough to serve as a footnote for a larger internet phenomenon. This does not deserve its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatolicious (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for expansion per the additional available sources, as being more than one-event and no need by some (no offense) to treat Australia as if it were a backwater, as coverage by their press about one of their citizens for an initial and sunseqhent actions as good enough.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:10, 3 March 2009 (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.