Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ: The Musical (3rd 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 merge to I Will Survive. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Christ: The Musical
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a viral video, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for web content. The notability claim on offer here is that the video exists, "referenced" to its own presence on YouTube -- but simply existing isn't the notability test per se, providing circular verification of its existence by citing it to itself doesn't help, and otherwise this just linkfarms a long, contextless stack of glancing namechecks of its existence in newspaper or magazine articles that aren't about it, which does not help to build notability at all. We've all seen it, certainly, but that doesn't make it notable in the absence of any reliable source coverage about it to establish its significance. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to I Will Survive as a flash-in-the-pan blasphemy about which one can't say much more than it happened, people were either enraged or amused, it got News of the Weird-style coverage, and then nobody cared until the next time it came up for deletion on WP. Well=known cover, yes, which is why I propose the merge, but I don't see how it's justified as a stand-alone article. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to I Will Survive per above. The AfDs from 2009 and 2010 seem to argue "cultural impact" and "lasting significance" but this viral video has been basically forgotten 11 years later . Evaluation of the sources doesn't help its case either.

Overall the majority of the sources are passing mentions, and at best, just use the video as an example of the controversy around fair use law. That's not enough to justify a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (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.