Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF Tick Tock


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

IDF Tick Tock

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:NN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, this article is simple a collection of indiscriminate details of an event that happened recently. Its more of a news story rather than the historical event it is being portrayed as. Its serves little contextual purpose as it is not a major issue/event in the Israeli Defence League and certainly is not contexually significant to Tik Tok (song). It is simply a random sporadic event which captured some media attention. The page serves no purpose other than to describe what happened in the video as well as acting as a central page for other videos and to transpose indiscriminate details from the media providing no purpose. The event has had little impact upon the IDF or "Tik Tok". Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete . Appears to fail WP:EVENT. __meco (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have concluded further down on this page, some time to think about this and seeing the discussion here has made me reverse my position, so Keep. __meco (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong/Speedy/Snow Keep. I find this one of the more peculiar nominations of the month.  The nom asserts the article is "non-notable".  Despite the fact that the article was chosen to be (and was) featured on Wikipedia's home page.  Despite the fact that this article attracted 4,600 hits in one day.  Despite The Christian Science Monitor pointing out that the video was filmed viewed more than 1.6 million times online just days after being uploaded.  Despite the 38 refs to the article.  And the many more that are revealed by a simple google search or two.  Despite the markedly broad international coverage – which a glance at the article refs reflects extends to Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta.  In addition to the other countries reflected in the above google searches.  Furthermore, the coverage includes coverage by some of the highest-level RSs, including the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor.  And consists largely of articles wholly devoted to the video.  This without question meets Notability, in that it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources".  This is notability 101.  I don't know if the nom's motivation here relates to his concurrent energetic effort to also delete the one-sentence mention of the IDF Tik Tok video from the Tik Tok article, per the RfC discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All the reasons you give appear not to be sufficient if one reads WP:EVENT carefully. I did because I wanted to see this article kept, however, it appears to fit the exact description of an article which isn't notable despite of widespread coverage.
 * Here's the critical text: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
 * I think it is clear both that this story falls into the category "'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena" and that we do not know of any aspect of this which has given it "enduring significance". Actually, there was one thing: the fact that the IDF is going to make an instructional video for its soldiers why it is inappropriate to make such videos or to dance while on duty but I'm not sure that will suffice. __meco (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the more critical (IMHO, of course) text; the above quote from the guidance ignores the more specific reference to how the global scope of coverage impacts a notability determination here: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ...  Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources...  In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine."  There is more, but this captures the core elements.  The scope of reporting here, broad, widespread, international global very wide coverage in diverse sources, including articles in the highest-level RSs devoted to the subject of this article, is just the sort of non-routine coverage that militates in favor of notability here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment NN (besides being used as filler material on slow newscasts), WP:EVENT and WP:RECENTISM. Merge to some viral video section at Military humor and then see if it is tolerated there. Delete any mention at the Tik Tok article, irrelevant to add 'trivia' section to all song articles that are used elsewhere. --Shuki (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have limited understanding of what an AfD is for. No mandate can be given from this page on whether or how this incident should be discussed in other articles. __meco (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It was all over the 3 major newspapers in Israel. Surely that means notability. Broccoli (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because it meets all the requirements of WP:CITE; WP:RS; WP:N and is easily and logically part of all the categories it belongs to: Category:Viral videos; Category:Flash mob; Category:Films about the Israel Defense Forces; Category:Israeli comedy and humour; Category:Israel Defense Forces cited on its page. IZAK (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment but its WP:NOTNEWS and its not an event of great significance. Take this example: "If my wife gave birth and requested "Tik Tok" to be played on the radio whilst doing so, and it recieved coverage from 3 newspapers" would that event be notable for its own page? Being covered by reliable sources ALONE is not enough to make it notable. What about the event is so significant? Has it had a lasting impact? NO... its completely random event thats all. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's silly, Lil. As I've already told you, in response to that example, if in your example it: a) leads to 1.6 million hits in a few days; b) the wiki article on it gets 4,600 hits in one day; c) dozens of news media cover it, all around the globe, including in Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta; and d) it is covered in the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor – why then, you may have something there.  But in your example, it would seem that your wife's incident would lack all the indicia of notability that are in evidence – in copious amounts – here.  In fact, it is the coverage in RSs that is at the core of wiki's notability standard.  Notability, not fame, is the standard on wiki, and we measure it by just such indicia.  Indeed, it would seem that most wiki articles lack quite the level of notability, measure by such indicia, as are present here. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What you have said still does not address the concerns and I've noticed you've dodged the question I asked about my example. (rather articulately but nevertheless dodged). So are you suggesting that if my wife gave birth to a child whilst listening to "Tik ToK" and the incident recieved coverage from news papers and 4600 hits per day I could create an article for it? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've not dodged them at all. I've addressed them directly.  Let me simplify this.  If you were to announce that you prefer one-ply toilet paper, or picking your nose with your pinky, or sleeping on the left side of the bed, and that were to attract:  a) 1.6 million hits in a few days on a video of your statement; b) the wiki article on it were to get 4,600 hits in one day; c) dozens of news media were to cover it, all around the globe, including in Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta; and d) it were covered in the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Christian Science Monitor – well, then, you would have a strong case for notability.  Now, of course your question is a classic red herring.  Why?  Because those events would fail to attract that RS coverage, etc.  Which is why our notability standard works.  It gives us something to point to, other than "Does Lil's POV deem this to be notable".  Something more objective.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lil-unique: Wait a minute, let's take some of the categories it's in. Looking over Category:Viral videos, none of them are different to this one, like Diet Coke and Mentos eruption (combining diet coke and mentos is not significant, yet it's got an article), Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out (a gal cuts off her hair, and that's got an article); Puppy-throwing Marine viral video (nothing significant, yet it portrays a marine killing a dog as if it's major.) We are living in the age of YouTube where such things are significant in terms of the time and that's why there are such subjects as viral videos and flash mobs and their related categories. There is also no question that this is a well-documented example that fits perfectly into Category:Israeli comedy and humour and Category:Films about the Israel Defense Forces with their other similar examples. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Using other articles as a standard is NOT a suitable argument for this article or AfD unless said articles are GA or FA. No. of hits does not make something notable. IMO none of those should exist. I notice none of you chose to respond to the example I gave... --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lil--Perhaps you missed the following in the guidance that you quote. Inasmuch as you mis-state what it says.  In pertinent part, it says:  "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."  Which, of course, is precisely what our fellow editor is doing here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um Lil-unique: You ask ""If my wife gave birth and requested "Tik Tok" to be played on the radio whilst doing so, and it recieved [sic] coverage from 3 newspapers" would that event be notable for its own page?" – well, the only way to really answer your question correctly is if you actually took a video of your wife as actually asking for a song while giving birth, and you then uploaded that to YouTube and got a response that could be measured, we could all judge, but since you evidently have not done so, your example is irrelevant and does not hold any water, and your question has nothing to do with this video which has already garnered massive attention measured the only way it can be done by YouTube's hit counters and wider reporting in the world's media. IZAK (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And again you've dodged the question I've asked. My point is just because something has happened e.g. this event, the actual happening of such an event in itself is not notable per the guidelines I've already given. Instead of diluting the discussion by jumping on every alternative answer why don't you answer the question I've asked? Because otherwise all of the comments you personally have made don't address the concerns in my nominating of this article for deletion. The question of the 'wife giving birth' is an example and the answer would have been no! Its not notable. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I've answered your question.  Explaining it another way, your wife giving birth example will (we can expect) fail to attract 1.6 million hits in a few days, dozens of articles devoted to it in RSs across the globe, 4,600 hits on a wiki article about it, etc.  Why?  Because it is non-notable.  That is what distinguishes it from this article.  Which has all of those indicia.  And, therefore, is notable.  It is these objective criteria that allow us to keep editors from deleting articles on a wholly subjective "IDONTLIKEIT" basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I still stand by my nomination of the article but I can understand some of your POV. Like I said earlier I don't think wikipedia is a place for this sort of content and that's based on my interpretation of the guidelines which is obv. different to yours. Lets leave it as that and allow others to comment because its obv. neither of us are going to change our minds. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. A video that generated as much coverage as this is certainly notable and I see no reason not to have an article here.--Michig (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – User:Meco's comment asserts that the article lapses from WP:EVENT, quoting a passage about "Routine kinds of news events". Dog bites man is routine.  Man bites dog is notable.  Other soldiers have appeared in videos, that went viral.  Were those other soldier-videos routine?  Maybe.  I dunno.  But this article describes a controversy.  The soldiers may be punished.  So, it is not like the other soldier videos.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you are right. After having some time to ponder the issue, and seeing the discussion taking place here, I am happy to reconsider the issue. __meco (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: one of millions of viral videos lacking notability. It's gotten some media attention, but that's not really the same as notable coverage. Much of the article seems to be puffery designed to inflate the importance of the video. That said, I wouldn't be too opposed to see it stay if some of the irrelevance was trimmed out.  bahamut0013  words deeds 00:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per User:Epeefleche.AMuseo (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It gets massive news coverage around the world. Notable also because its the first time anyone has ever done this on patrol, not just in their own base.   D r e a m Focus  01:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

 * Ok its obvious this is a snowball and the majority of the community with the article to be kept. Though I still haven't changed my mind I will accept the outcome whatever it might be. I do however request that the article be trimmed because right now I think its a fatty piece of meat that could be made more lean. Other users have commented that there is WP:Puffery here too. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you may or may not know, this page is not the place to discuss future edits of the article. We are here to decide whether or not to delete the article. You should make that suggestion known on the article's talk page when/if it is kept (or even now, as all things point towards the nomination being rejected). __meco (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually such a comment is appropriate here because if it gains enough support from others the admin who closes the AfD will list that as a condition. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is not how AfDs are conducted. At least not any of the many AfDs I have witnessed. __meco (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do know I'm just going to give up commenting on this AfD (I've made my vote alread) because everything I say leads to an some form of clarification or counter-comment or elaboration from yourself. I have a right (and enough experience on wiki) to be able to make WP:BOLD comments/suggestions. I am fed up of my comments being refactored. You appear to be trying to guide this discussion which is most certainly not how AfDs work. I have intitiated and commented on a fair few AfDs in my time so don't patronise me any further. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   confabulate 04:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Kudos to the nom for accepting the community's consensus.  Point of clarification -- I don't believe Meco was being condescending.  But rather, quite accurately (and with complete civility) reflecting wikipedia AfD practice.  I recognize that nom is a seasoned editor, as is Meco, but my experience in this regard accords with that of Meco.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTNEWS. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please state what section under WP:NOTNEWS you consider applicable to this article? __meco (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its just another Youtube video out of billions. With the right keywords any clip can get over a million hits. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the stupidest reasoning I have read in a very long time. I won't even bother to engage its merits. __meco (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. This is trivia. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please state what section under WP:NOTNEWS you consider applicable to this article as the term "trivia" isn't mentioned there? __meco (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please state what section under WP:NOTNEWS you consider applicable to this article? Also, you cite two WP shortcuts, but you are probably aware that they reference the same target? __meco (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep precisely because it is notable, it has received extensive, worldwide coverage, and it is more than adequately sourced. As for Lil-unique1's concerns about "cutting the fat", I reviewed this article for the Did You Know page, and I found it well-written and well-organized per the sources. "I just don't like it" is not a reason to nix a perfectly good article. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment, speedy keep is a ridiculous notion. Just say you want the article kept. Will people also stop try to make out that "I Just don't Like it" as my justification? I nominated the article because I felt that such content has no place on wikipedia because of the two policies I've quoted. Something which very few of the "keep comments" have addressed. Instead people have opted to side-step the issue and point to the media coverage as making it notable. My original concerns were that the IDF incident has had little lasting effect on the IDF or Tik Tok. It is not a noteworthy event IMO. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTNEWS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please state what section under WP:NOTNEWS you consider applicable to this article? __meco (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
 * Most such events do not attract 4,600 wiki hits, are not viewed more than 1.6 million times online, do not have dozens of articles written about them, and do not have markedly broad international coverage that includes Israel, the U.S., England, Ireland, France, Australia, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Malta. This is obviously different from "most events" in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * comment there are not, in fact, "millions" of viral videos that have gotten "millions" of hits.  This one has.  Also, you have to count carefully on Youtube.  Popular videos like this one get posted and re-posted.  The original posting was taken down, so we have no idea how many hits it got.  But it was reposted.  Here is a reposting that got 2,666,000 hits  there are several repostings with other odd titles and lots of hits.  How many millions of hits?  I don't know.  but not that many videos hit this big.  Also, the Arabic press covered this heavily.  Israeli soldiers dance during call to prayer, disrespect Islam, yada, yada40Chestnut (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious KeepIsraeli army patrol draws worldwide coverage. Of course it's notable.40Chestnut (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT. To quote: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Routine reporting of a small viral video doesn't qualify. The video currently has 1.1 million hits. Please take a look at the most viewed videos on Youtube from this week alone: . About 20 videos this week alone have more hits. And several of them have had extensive media coverage. Unless you're planning on making pages for them too, there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep this one. MikeMan67 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Our notability criteria focus on reliable sources and not on Google hits, YouTube views or similar counts. Also, it is hardly an argument for deletion that other, would-be notable articles haven't been created. __meco (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've changed your tune. Only early have you been agreeing with others who used the number of hits as a measure of notability. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike: For some reason, that I can't fathom, you've stopped your inquiry abruptly short, rather than complete it.  Please share with us which of the video you refer to have been mentioned in dozens of RS articles, of RSs of the highest level, with the article being devoted to the video, and the newspapers being geographically dispersed over 10 or more countries.  Equally disturbing is your failure to mention the sentence immediately following the one you quote.  Which says:  "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  Clearly, what is being referred to in the guideline is a very different animal that the one we have here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria which makes its notable for coverage in those RS's is different to the criteria that makes it notable for wikipedia. That much we've already discussed and established above. Many things get coverage by RS's but that doesn't mean they're notable or appropriate for wikipedia. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Related controversy on song talk page
Since the issue is clearly related I will give a heads-up to contributors on this page that there is an ongoing Request for Comments at the song's talk page over whether or not to include mention of this incident on that page. Please see Talk:Tik Tok (song). __meco (talk) 06:06, 23 July 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.