Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ: The Musical (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. –MuZemike 23:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ: The Musical
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete - For a subject to have an article on Wikipedia, there must be reliable secondary sources that substantially cover the subject. While the article currently includes a number of links to articles in which the subject of this article is mentioned in passing, there remain no reliable secondary sources which are substantially about this subject. Apply the well-established notability guidelines and delete this article. Otto4711 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 12:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG and WP:V satisfied per consensus of previous discussion. Eliteimp (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "Substantial" (length) and "Significant" (detail) are not the same thing.  Many of the sources in the article appear to address the subject directly in detail, rather than being trivial listings or similar.  Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea that "substantial" is not sufficiently synonymous with "significant" in this usage is faintly ludicrous, nor is "substantial" limited in any way to meaning the length of the source. I agree that many of the sources appear to cover the subject in detail, however upon actually examining the sources, they do not. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to I Will Survive - Sources are not sufficient to establish notability. The few sources which actually deal with the subject in a non-trivial way all focus on the copyright lawsuit associated with it.  The video itself does not appear to be notable per WP:N nor does it pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.  Below is a description of all of the sources that are currently included in this article:
 * - IMDb page. Not a reliable source to establish notability.
 * - A 79-word mini-article about the copyright lawsuit over the performance of the song I Will Survive in this video.
 * - An article about a lecture given by a legal theorist about copyright infringement, which included this video as an example.
 * - A single sentence mention about the video being nominated for a Webby award.
 * - Single sentence trivial mention on the last page of this article which has nothing to do with this video.
 * - This is the same article as above, just on a different site.
 * - Transcript of a 2007 NPR interview with the director, mainly about copyright law.
 * - Blog post with trivial mention of the video, which doesn't even call it by its name.

Snotty Wong  gab 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Though many more are available through searches, and have not yet beeen included, here is a re-evaluation of the sources currently used in this article:
 * The Age - An article about comedians "pushing limits" which uses this video as one of the many examples given.
 * Brisbane Times - The same article as from The Age, but without the byline.
 * Stanford.edu - a brief legal article that deals with this copyright problems of this video in its use of the song I Will Survive.
 * Ars Tecghnica - An article discussiing a lecture by a leagal theorist, and which discusses this video within an overall context to copyright infringement.
 * San Francisco Chronicle - Policy required verification of this video being nominated for a Webby Award.
 * NPR - Transcript of a 2007 National Public Radio interview with the director, about copyright law in its relationship to this video.
 * The Phoenix - Article in Loyola University Chicago college newspaper discussing humorous videos on Youtube, ending with a summary of how author's search for cult videos resulted in his finding "a music video for the song 'I Will Survive' starring Jesus Christ himself".
 * IMDB page should only be used as an external link per WP:ELYES.
 * If not all, at least many of the sources in the article appear to address the subject directly in detail and in context to copyright infringement, rather than being trivial listings or similar. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.  "Substantial" (length) and "Significant" (detail) are not the same thing.  Editors are invited to review the Find searches themselves to determine if the TOPIC itself is worth note and whether the available sources meet WP:GNG.  And yes... more of the sources found through searches should be used to expand and source the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole problem lies in the definition of the word "trivial". This is the entire mention from sources 5 and 6 (from my list above), since they are the same article on different sites:
 * Here is the entire mention in source #8 from my list:
 * Those are the only sentences that deal with this subject in those 3 sources. Admittedly, some of the other sources deal with the subject in a marginally more substantial way, but in my opinion, this coverage is not what I would consider significant.  Given this level of coverage now, can we really imagine that anyone will remember or care about this short music video parody 10 years from now?  If your answer is no, then consider that notability is not temporary.   Snotty Wong   communicate 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeated hammering of refuted points does not adress the other sources in the article, nor the myriad other sources available online.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, if you are going to claim that all possibly all, but at least most of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject when in fact they do not, then unfortunately that point will have to be repeatedly hammered, regardless of whether you believe you have "refuted" my point (which you haven't). Making false claims (even unintentionally) about the quality of the sources does not advance this discussion in any productive way.    Snotty Wong   confer 23:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Still an unfortunate mis-quote that acts to denigrate my observation. I NEVER wrote "possibly all, but at least most"... I wrote "If not all, at least many...".  I NEVER wrote "sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject"... I wrote "sources in the article appear to address the subject directly in detail".   So if you'd care to re-read WP:GNG, you'll learn that significant does not mandate substantive, as while it intructs that sources should address the subject directly, it cautions that the TOPIC need not be the main focus of the source.  Perhaps better if you do not try to imply something about what I write unless you can quote accurately.  And this diversion about current sources still does not address what is available online to editors for article improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said ALL.... what i wrote above was "If not all, at least many of the sources in the article appear to address the subject directly in detail"... so please strike that incredibly bad faith and unfounded accusation. What I did is carefully and one-by-one explain just what each of the included sources offered contextually... just not as dismissively as did you.  Continually pointing only at what was used to build the article, and ignore what is available online to editors for its improvement is decidedly not helpful. So please, might you refrain from the bickering and insults?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Semantics aside, I think you really need to take a step back and look at the article about which you are so vehemently arguing. Seriously.  A parody music video?  Really?
 * That's all I have to say about this AfD. Cheers.    Snotty Wong   comment 05:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Lessig has become enough of a player to merit the attention of the right-wing attack machine. After he showed a clip during a talk of an Argentine artist's video featuring Jesus dancing to Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" before getting hit by a bus, RedState.com, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh all tore into him as "anti-Christian." Fox News even sent a camera to ambush him after he testified at a recent Senate hearing. RedState coverage here
 * Keep - We just did this a year ago and nothing has changed. Is the article the greatest article ever? No. Will it ever be a featured article? Almost certainly not. But is it notable per WP:N? Yes, and that's the criteria we're going by here. The mentions are not trivial merely because they relate the video to copyright infringement--they are contextual, and the context of copyright law is a central one to this video. There are several notable sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the topic along with an impressive number of additional sources, notable and not, with more cursory treatment. The former is a good hint to notability, and the latter proves it. Snottywong: it's not about the quality of the topic, nor does every parody music video belong in Wikipedia, but that's not the criteria here: notability is, and this article has it. Zachlipton (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was alerted to this AfD on my talk page as I commented in the previous AfD. Snottywong says that "Given this level of coverage now, can we really imagine that anyone will remember or care about this short music video parody 10 years from now? If your answer is no, then consider that notability is not temporary." I think you misunderstand the meaning of "Notability is not temporary." Its meaning is the opposite of your interpretation. To quote from it, "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Whether anyone will remember or care about this video in 10 years is entirely irrelevant, and this is precisely the point that "Notability is not temporary" seeks to make! WP:NOTNEWS does say that Wikipedia is not a news site, but this article is not attempting to be a news story. The article describes a 'cult' video that gathered a fair amount of coverage from October 2006 through to 2008. The video was certainly controversial, which is why it gained coverage:
 * Snottywong says we should "take a step back and look at the article about which you are so vehemently arguing. Seriously. A parody music video?". Unfortunately for Snottywong, the perceived triviality of a topic according to Wikipedians is never grounds for deletion. I lean towards weak keep after being neutral last time as it may scrape the WP:GNG, though I'm not opposed to a merge to Cultural depictions of Jesus. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- this was certainly the source of significant controversy for a while, as noted above by Fences and windows. In fact, I got kicked off RedState for a thread involving this video... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, it was the very thread linked just above here, under "RedState coverage". Duh. :-) Incidentally, this would appear to be a remix of the video "Alien Song", which ends much the same way. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be able to find a RS pointing this out, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some people apparently think it's funny, and I still don't like it - so what? It is sourced.  Springnuts (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Always so helpful to the discussion when one accuses others of initiating an AfD because one doesn't like the subject matter. Otto4711 (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per discussion on this talk page toward cultural and historical impact, and what is or is not "worthy of note".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:45, 30 June 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.