Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interweb medley


 * 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 DELETE  does not assert notability per WP:WEB, lack external media references to topic (i.e., WP:V --Madchester 17:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Interweb medley
This appears to be a non-notable, not-yet-web-phenomenon. It gets a mere 169 Google hits (as of 06:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)). It appears to fail Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day in principle (if "things made up on the web one day" is equivalent, and I think it is). The article may not be promotion as the article creator could as easily be a fan as the song's creator, but it sets off my promotion-radar nonetheless. It should be deleted for non-notability. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 06:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please read this article about the Wikipedia philosophy of inclusionism and reconsider call/votes to delete. --AStanhope 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (author)
 * Comment: Yeah, you lost me upon following that link when it said that deletionists need to get a life.  That's not a philosophy, that's combat.  RGTraynor 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I missed that part. My intent wasn't to insult you or anyone else - only to point you towards what I think is a good overview of the general philosophy to "when in doubt, keep."  No combat from me.  --AStanhope 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you're reading too much into the "Inclusionists" article. The article is about the philosophy of Wikipedia inclusionists, and while it does illuminate the differences between inclusionists' and exclusionists' philosophies, it doesn't take sides and certainly doesn't stoop to insults. Luvcraft 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Any insults on my part come from me alone and have nothing to do with whether or not I believe the inclusionist creed. As for that creed, my point is that if an article has already been created, is accurate and truthful and doesn't harm or liable anyone, why not let it stay?  Note: When I went to the Wikipedia (my primary general information source) after seeing the BoingBoing post and entered "Interweb medley" into the search dialog, not only was no article returned, the standard Wikipedia plea for the user to CREATE an article if it doesn't exist was displayed.  I chose to follow that invitation to create the article.  As a community, we should err on the side of inclusion - else that message wouldn't appear.  --AStanhope 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My comment was a response to RGTraynor's comment, not to yours. This nesting is getting confusing! :) Luvcraft 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PWOOOSH! (sound of my head exploding) hehe --AStanhope 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The host site for that so-called phemonemon's web page has an Alexa rank of over 170K; notability not proven.  RGTraynor 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The official website for Schindler's List has an Alexa rank of over 2 million. Should we delete that too? Luvcraft 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Schindler's List doesn't exist solely online. If it did and had such a low Alexa rating, that would certainly raise doubts of its notability. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 17:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are incapable of backing down, aren't you? Have you nominated Claude Vermette for deletion yet?  --AStanhope 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I told you that you are welcome to. I believe this subject is non-notable, and the other is notable. Obviously I may be in error, and an AfD would determine whether this is so neatly. Be my guest, but please stop disrupting the AfD to make a point. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the nominator states: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete looks cute, but no verification or sources that provide evidence of the this supposedly popular medley.-- danntm T C 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am the post author, and no - I'm not promoting anything of my own. I saw the song in question on BoingBoing and thought it dovetailed well into the Internet meme article(s) here - and indeed, many of the twelve songs drawn upon are covered in detail here. I marked it with stub tags to solicit a fleshing out over time. I put some time into the articleo and the inclusionist in me thinks that once the article is established and isn't causing harm it might as well stay. --AStanhope 01:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I had 1600+ edits as of June, 2006. --AStanhope 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It was it on BoingBoing, then it got linked to other place. --Sirkowski 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I knew it was linked on BoingBoing. I just don't think being linked by BoingBoing is enough to make it notable by Wikipedia's standards: this BoingBoing article about a wifi router doesn't mean it merits its own Wikipedia article. Most bona-fide internet phenomena don't get Wikipedia articles because they're passing things or just don't get big enough. This isn't even yet an internet phenomenon, and any notability that it currently has is "instant" notability by borrowing from existing notable internet phenomena. That Cory Doctorow liked it doesn't make it any more notable. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: user's 4th edit. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No more obtrusive than articles on albums from obscure artists. The criteria cited above for article deletion, e.g. number of google hits, should not necessarily be taken into account as the song is new. The main reason for my vote: the article combines through linking many other quality articles. If the article in question is eventually removed, the original author should add info on the "Interweb medley" to the respective song articles. RFenno 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the song is new, then it is extremely unlikely to be notable ... which in this case it is not.  RGTraynor 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: Clearly we differ in the importance of notability in making decisions such as this one. I have laid out the reasoning behind my vote. It takes all kinds.... RFenno 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that all but one of the songs covered in the medley have their own articles on Wikipedia suggests that a mash up of all of them is, in fact, noteworthy.Elijahdprophet 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: user's first edit. (To Elijahdprophet: Be aware that very new users' votes may be discarded by the admin when closing the discussion, for lack of a verifiable identity.) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fair enough, thanks for the info.  Elijahdprophet 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The song, if not at least notable, has the potential to become notable. Besides, it's well executed and catchy.--80.42.151.164 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: IP's first edit. (To the anon: Note that anonymous votes are generally not counted, for the usual reasons.) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the record, the first-time user and anon shills aren't mine! hehe  --AStanhope 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you bring it up, it is of note that RFenno is a real-life friend of yours, according to your RfA. I don't consider it meatpuppeting exactly, but the closing admin might weigh that. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, RFenno is a real life friend of mine. Is this a popularity contest? You'll note that I didn't disown him.  You seem to be approaching this issue as some sort of a "winner take all" game.  So much wasted energy, imo.  --AStanhope 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * delete The memes themselves are notable, a list of the memes might be notable, but a song about the memes, not yet having notoriety itself, does not warrant its own article. --Mattarata 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I beg to differ. Being linked by BoingBoing and it's inclusion of internet memes is enough to make it notable by Wikipedia's standards. Note: this user has 48 edits.Bryce byerley 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Getting linked from BoingBoing doesn't make something notable in and of itself, and a link from BoingBoing is the only thing going for this song as far as notability is concerned. Neither the notability of the constituent parts nor the imagined potential for the medley to become notable are of any relevance whatsoever. N6 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reason as Mattarata. How many of you heard about this song before this article? I know I didn't. Taboo Tongue 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hearing about something before reading about it in the Wikipedia isn't a valid test of notability. --AStanhope 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Try not to attack straw men. The reason stated is "same... as Mattarata". The comment about not having heard it is merely illustrative. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep In two more days, the Google hits are up to 213 (with extras omitted; 16,300 without omission); seems to be growing. And I'll save you the trouble, user edits count is 120. I go in waves, you see...--Bltpdx 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 44 more hits in two days?  Gosh.  At this rate it'll only take two or three years to become merely insignificant in terms of Internet memes, as opposed to completely off the radar screen.  If it had added four thousand new hits in two days, that would be something. RGTraynor 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I remember why I don't get involved in these discussions. Can you point me to the article which backs up your contentions about hit-count requirements?--Bltpdx 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no hit-count requirements. It's an informal way of getting a quick guage of how much exposure it has in the wild, and not meant to be accurate or definitive either. More important is the standards for notability and verifiability by reliable sources. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment RGTraynor: Is sarcasm/mockery really appropriate for somebody who posts their opinion here? Have you lost sight of what we are doing here? --AStanhope 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The vanity article you wrote about your grandfather, Claude Vermette, only gets 143 hits in Google - the first of which is the article here on Wikipedia. Hardly seems notable, especially prior to your creating the article.  Will you be proposing deletion for that article as well? By your standards it should have been deleted long ago.  The inclusionist in me, however, says that since it does no harm, your article should stay. --AStanhope 01:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this personally and trying to make this personal. Please note that nobody owns articles and editors should not try to exert power over them as if they did. You are welcome to nominate Claude Vermette for deletion so that the community can discuss whether it should be deleted or kept. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No - I am genuinely an inclusionist. I do not want to see the vanity article you wrote about your grandfather deleted. If you were to nominate it for deletion, I would vote Keep. --AStanhope 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Inclusionism is only one philosophy, not the only philosophy. Using inclusionist arguments will only sway inclusionists, who, presumably, would have voted keep before hearing such arguments. Unless you have anything new and policy-based to offer, I'd suggest you take a breath and let the process play out. If enough people agree with you (or you have new arguments that are based on policy) the article will be kept. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the right thing for you to do at this point would be to withdraw this deletion request. You seem to feel very strongly about having this article deleted, however the reasons you have stated apply equally to the vanity article you've written about your grandfather and proudly displayed on your User page. One must conclude that you have other unstated reasons to seek the deletion of this article. I do not pretend to understand this. Why not withdraw the deletion request for now so that you may spend some time deciding whether or not this article is a legitimate intended target for your aggression? If, in time, you decide that it is, by all means renominate it for deletion. I would hope, however, that some time spent looking within yourself will shed some light on your real motivations. --AStanhope 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, nobody owns articles. This AfD isn't "mine", and judging by the response to this so far there are those who would have nominated it in my place had I not. Not only would withdrawing it be disruptive, but I have no authority to do so. (See "not mine".) Furthermore, impuning the motivations of another editor with whom you disagree is an ad hominem fallacy. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like this? "The article may not be promotion as the article creator could as easily be a fan as the song's creator, but it sets off my promotion-radar nonetheless." --AStanhope 03:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As that's a comment on the merits of the article ("if it walks and quacks like advertising, it's probably advertising") and not an attempt to discredit someone's arguments by attacking them personally, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am getting 12000+ Google hits for interweb medley and 14000+ hits for "interweb medley". Are you sure that you spelled it correctly when you searched? I know nothing about songwriting and recording but I doubt this creation was only a day start to finish - and since it utilized some sort of recording technology, I doubt it took place at a school. The "day" test is specious anyway, particularly with art or pop-culture or news events. Arbitrarily declaring the worth of something based on an uninformed third party's guess at how long it took is a yardstick for nothing. Some of the greatest artistic achievements in the world took less than a day... Some of the most narcissistic and lame took months or years. You get the point.  I hope that nobody is still under the impression that I am the song's creator or have any connection with the song. I am a 36 year old parent and Wikipedia addict with at least 1600 edits made over the course of 20 months (the counter seems to be stuck at 1616 for me - I don't understand why). --AStanhope 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I said "in principle". Like a zen koan, there is something of value to be gained by contemplating the why behind a Wikipedia essay that has high community acceptance. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I, for one, disagree that you're applying the principle correctly. None of the "checks" seem to apply - unless you're still arguing that AStanhope is the author of the song. Internet fads/memes seem to be well-established candidates for inclusion; this fad appears to be growing as we speak.--Bltpdx 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere a well-established precedent for articles on unestablished memes. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball indicates the opposite. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am a first-time editor AND a friend of the original author, which twin facts I understand would normally render my opinion rather meaningless. However, I am supremely confident that the raw power of my argument will prove impossible to ignore.  Behold:  There is a Wikipedia article for each of the songs in the Interweb medley, save one.  Is a Wikipedia user who comes to read about Badger Badger Badger not ill-served if she comes away without the knowledge that Badger Badger Badger has been collected into the Interweb medley? RaulGroom 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anyone here read WP:MEME (which was rejected as a proposal), or WP:WEB/WP:MUSIC both of which cover this subject fairly well? Testing through these guidelines fail to produce any significant support for the article. WP:WEB would support the article if it were to gain additional notability through an additional 1 or 2 media outlets other than boing boing. WP:MUSIC would seem to support converting the article into one based on the composer, should the song/composer become notable. I retain my delete vote above. Additionally I think both Saxifrage and AStanhope need to refrain from posting comments here unless additional questions are posed directly to them, they can present additional evidence, or the article is significantly modified. --Mattarata 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sanity check on both counts. I'll take your suggestion to heart. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:02, 16 August 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.