Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is it a good idea to microwave this


 * 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.  Quite a large number of the comments incorporated all of the worst points of WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:GHITS, WP:WAX, and WP:ITSNOTABLE and were ignored. Bottom line is that the consensus is that the article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB as there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. NW ( Talk ) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to microwave this

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A7 declined. Amusing videos, but the show doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB standards. Their subscriber and viewing rates are somewhat significant, but this and this are the only hits in a GNews archive search, which just doesn't cut it. I can't find much mention in other reliable sources, either. Jamie  S93  21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not even close to notable. Hilarious video, though.  ceran  thor 21:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The references seem to meet WP:WEB with its Boston Herald and Tube Filter articles on the page. Anonymous~Source (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The references appear to meet WP:WEB. Cm0n3y34 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC) — Cm0n3y34 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy keep. Has a notability factor, references could be improved, and all in all, it's an article that is worth keeping. Also, the references should meet WP:WEB. ConCompS (Talk to me) 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – references are used to establish and support notability. If they are lacking then so is notability.   ttonyb  (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - keeep:it provoides ample information and is notible enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.47.243 (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)  (Moved out of the template) — 72.78.47.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - I've donated them abunch of items and they deserve to stay as recognized small Youtube Contributors, they've met most of the youtube celebs from the 789 Gathering anyways...  Sanchmarc (talk) 4:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment –How does this meet the criteria for notability?  ttonyb (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - If other YouTube users have had their Wiki's saved, why can't The Microwave Show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.16.28 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment –The existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. Please see WP:WAX.  ttonyb (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While this is true, I believe he is asking what is the difference between this and other articles that makes them notable, but this not? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable viewing figures. Article will improve if the show's creators and fan-base contribute. 94.3.166.133 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — 94.3.166.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Unfortunately popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability.  ttonyb (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't want the fan base or the creators contributing.  If that happens, you end up with an article full of fancruft and original research rather than a verifiable, well-referenced article.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - EvilHom3r (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - 86.170.195.109 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — 86.170.195.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - They are highly notable and sited on both Television, Newspaper and the internet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.59.7 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Unfortunately real world notability does not equal Wikipedia notability.  ttonyb (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – So what you are saying is if it hasn't been featured on so many news shows or sites, its not notable? Cm0n3y34 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – It is not what I am saying, it is the Wikipedia criteria that applies here. A couple of articles, one very short and another of questionable reliability is not substantial coverage.    ttonyb  (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This dosen't fall into WP:WEB as far as I can see. The Boston globe article is very short and only says that it exists and the guy is making money off of it. Also is tubefilter a reliable source? --Guerillero (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Boston Globe archives articles 7 days after the last update. ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: From Tubefilter: Tubefilter News has been cited by Variety, and its staff have been quoted by the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, The Wrap, and BusinessWeek when covering the web television industry. All claims have sources backing up claims of validity. It would appear that Tubefilter is indeed a reliable source. They also operate the Streamy Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbifriday (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well, actually, that Boston Herald article was a full-page spread with two images  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPizzle1122 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Link removed - indication the link was infected with HTML/Iframe.B.Gen virus  ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment: avast! caught that bugger in the process of downloading it as well. I would've posted it if it weren't for the edit conflicts. ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Umm. . . there was no virus. It was a JPG of the newspaper article, and mcafee (up to date) spotted nothing.


 * Delete I don't see how it meets WP:WEB when the Boston Herald (not Globe) article is a free stub and you have to pay for the full text. Also agree that tubefilter not the most reliable of sources to establish notability with.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ TALK  01:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep very close to speedy keep - Very notable actor, Google search returns over a million hits. December21st2012Freak   Happy Thanksgiving! 01:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Notability does not transfer from one entity to another. BTW - there are only 523 Google hits.  For some reason the numbers are not correct - you can see this if you go to the last page of the search.   ttonyb  (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google search "Is it a good idea to microwave this" (without the quotes), and you will see 1,820,000 hits. December21st2012Freak   Happy Thanksgiving! 02:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC
 * Comment - Are any of those his a reliable source? Also shouldn't you use quotes or you get hits with those words in any order? --Guerillero (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * December21stFreak, take a close look at the Google hits you get without the quotes, and see how many of those have anything at all to do with this throughly non-notable YouTube show. Please also make sure you read Speedy keep carefully, this discussion does not meet any of the requisites for a speedy close. Glass  Cobra  02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:GOOGLEHITS just because there are a ton of hits doesn't prove its notable. --Guerillero (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Okay... not sure why you removed the link, but again, here is the full article for reference: http://twitpic.com/qg1d8 --J-Pizzle (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Double vote. --Zvn (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The Boston Herald source does not constitute significant coverage, and the other sources are not reliable as per WP:RS. Arguments from those voting to keep fall mostly under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:ILIKEIT. Glass  Cobra  02:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the above article I linked to doesn't constitute "significant coverage"... what exactly does? Multiple reliable news sources?--Jonny Paula (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. Please see WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Glass  Cobra  03:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Where's the beef? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentWikipedia is seriously losing my respect. . . Someone needs to make a few changes to the notability rules in WP:WEB Cm0n3y34 (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — Cm0n3y34 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete, fails the general notability guideline. Doesn't appear to be the subject of several reliable publications independent of the subject itself. talking  birds  16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There needs to be some rules changed by wikipeida. . . This is considered notable by many, and by definition, notable is :
 * adj.
 * 1. Worthy of note or notice; remarkable: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina.
 * 2. Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent: formed a commission of notable citizens. See Synonyms at noted.
 * n.
 * 1. A person of distinction or great reputation. See Synonyms at celebrity.
 * 2. often Notable One of a council of prominent persons in pre-Revolutionary France called into assembly to deliberate at times of emergency.
 * I don't see "In more than x newspapers or news shows. The show has been featured on multiple video websites, has been in the news (apparently not often enough for Wikipedia), the hosts have been on TV, and the show has 173,839 users who subscribed to the Youtube channel. Who knows how many other users watch the show without subscribing? I (and at least 150,000 others) feel this show, and the hosts (Jon, Jory, and Riley) deserve a wiki page for Is it a Good Idea to Microwave This, as well as pages about the hosts themselves. ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The deal is, if we didn't set definitive boundaries and criteria, I'm afraid the term "notable" would become very subjective. I agree that a few aspects of the notability guidelines may be flawed, but one person's perception of a subject being "significant/noteworthy" will be very different from another, and I think we'd end up with a mess. This is not just a website, it's an encyclopedia, and actually a very inclusive one if you think of others such as Britannica, which focus on topics like science and history. Jamie  S93  21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The question, Talkingbirds, is what do we define as "Several". As far as I know, there is no true numerical value of several. Therefore, we can not quantify "Several" by saying that the show haven't been mentioned in "Several" reliable publications. The show has been featured in at least two, possibly more that are simply harder to find. I believe that we can not say with certainty that this article has not met WP:GNG. --Fbifriday (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: On an unrelated note, here's a fire extinguisher! Just thought I would bring it in for any heated debate that might just catch fire. ConCompS (Talk to me) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC) FireExtinguisherABC.jpg


 * Comment – Nicely done ConCompS.  Let's all remember what this page is for, it is to determine if the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.  It is not for a prolonged discussion of the criteria for inclusion.  Cm0n3y34, you are more then welcome to argue that changes be made to the criteria, but they are better placed on the criteria page than here.  Including such discussion here only hides it from those that might agree with your comments and does not contribute to the original intent of this page.  Additionally, it makes it harder for the reviewing admin to focus on the points made to save the article.  Thanks everyone...  ttonyb  (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment an additional source (of unknown reliability) is here Is It A Good Idea To Microwave A Nintendo Zapper | Smash Gamers Kb3pxr (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. Crafty (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That looks like a blog. And to the best of my knowlage blogs are not a reliable source.--Guerillero (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - If Chad_Vader and Smosh can have their own wikipedia page with most of the references being their own videos, and the rest being unreliable as per WP:RS, then Is It A Good Idea To Microwave This can also have their own article. Smosh has one article where the one mention of them is that they had one an award a for best comedy video at the youtube awards, and Chad Vader has no reliable sources. However, Smosh has only been challenged 3 times by an AFD request. Once it was kept, twice the request was withdrawn. And Chad Vader has never had an AFD request put on it. If we hold one article to the WP:WEB, then must we not hold them all to the same standard, which would result in the deletion of most of the List of YouTube celebrities's articles? --Fbifriday (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – All articles are held to the same standards. As pointed out above, the existence of an article does not justify the existence of another article.  See WP:WAX. Each article must stand on its own merits and meet the criteria for notability.  There may be other articles that should be nominated for deletion and you are welcome to nominate them.   ttonyb  (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment My point is that the Smosh article was kept after being nominated, with fewer sources than this. Also, remember WP:BURO. I believe we are over-interpreting A7 in this case, as A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.", and does apply "if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." The credibility given by the Boston Herald article does indeed state why the subject is important or significant. Also, the line included in the article "As of November 2009, the channel is the #93 most subscribed channel of all time with over 173,000 subscribers on YouTube.", which includes a verifiable source, is enough to invalidate the line in A7 that states that a nomination under the A7 section means that the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". There needs to be no source to verify that claim, it simply needs to make a credible claim, which it is due to the amount of subscribers and the Boston Herald article. Therefore, the reason for nominating this article under A7 is invalidated. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – The flaw in your argument is this is not a Speedy Deletion. This is an AfD. A credible claim of notability is used only to save an article from Speedy Deletion. Once it has made a claim, it has to actually demonstrate notability. A single article or two is not enough to support the criteria in WP:WEB or WP:NOTE. As far as the number of subscribed users to the channel, popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. There is no indication of that as a criteria in WP:WEB.  Keep in mind that "real-world" notability does not equal Wikipedia notability.   ttonyb  (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:WEB can not be used as an argument for deletion for this article, as the article does indeed meet the first criteria of WP:WEB. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Multiple meaning more than one. There is no limit that must be met in order for it to be notable, it just says "Multiple". Two is "Mutiple". Three is "Multiple". 15 is "Multiple". There is no way to say that two articles is not enough, unless it's just your opinion, because two articles is multiple. Two articles are listed, one in the Boston Herald, which is a reputable newspaper with wide distribution, and Tubefilter, which is often quoted in widespread media organizations when discussing web television shows. It also meets WP:GNG. It has had significant coverage, meaning it was the subject of two articles which are independent. The sources are reliable, as per WP:RS. They also are secondary sources, as both sources are not associated with the material being covered. There is also a third article listed at the bottom of the WP article, although I am not sure if it is a reliable source, so I have decided to leave it out of my argument. But the two articles is enough to verify notability. --Fbifriday (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A. Keegan (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Going by WP policy, there are no secondary sources indepedent of the subject which discuss the article topic, which is what is used to confer notability and whther or not a topic merits inclusion on WP. Based on the arguments of "Keep", I haven't seen one comment that stays with WP policy, and is mostly opinions. It seems like this has a lot of popularity, and a lot of people editting here probably came due to the creators plea to save the WP page from Twitter. Regardless, this article does not meet WP guidelines/policies, and should be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It wasn't really a "plea" to save the article, it was just a head's up that the show has a page temporarily. Jon was only saying to help improve the actual article itself, not vote on this AfD. ConCompS (Talk to me) 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Big fan of the show, but the sources aren't there yet.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. C'mon you spoilsports! How did a popular Internet show become unnotable on here? Surely it deserves a bit of recognition, eh? I am dissapoint Face-sad.svg  The Toxic Mite  't 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Show us the goods that proves notability.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kubek15 T  C  S 17:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reason for keeping the article? I hope you know that your !vote will not be considered by the closing admin if there is no real rationale. Jamie  S93  19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jamie, you do realize that some people can find that comment to be snide? Click here...  The Toxic Mite  't 05:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snide or not, Jamie is right - this is not a vote, but rather a discussion, and without a rationale for the opinion, why should the closing admin take it into account? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually intending to ask the editor for their own sake, so s/he may have the opportunity to defend their view with more weight. Some people may not know, but when others are agreeing with the label "non-notable", a single "keep" vote with no reason won't contribute to the discussion. Regards, Jamie  S93  14:34, 28 November 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.