Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YTMND fads (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 of the debate was redirect to YTMND. This was a long discussion with lots of anons and newbies. However, it seems clear to me that the consensus among experienced editors was that this is not an article and should not stand alone. However, since some folks mentioned the possibility of a partial merge, I think closing this by redirecting is better than by deleting. This way we preserve the history for anyone who wants to try to merge. I discounted people who gave no reasons, or reasons like "we have even worse articles"- this is not an argument for keeping. Friday (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

List of YTMND fads
This article has been nominated for deletion twice before (Articles for deletion/List of YTMND fads and as part of Articles for deletion/YTMND (3rd nomination)). At least in the second previous nomination, there seemed to be a consensus for deleting this. Although the main YTMND website and the concept of fads are notable, individual fads are not. An individual YTMND fad is no more notable than some scribbling on some building wall. Delete this completely fancruftic list. J I P | Talk 19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY KEEP Best article on wikipedia.
 * Delete and redirect to YTMND listcruft Ydam 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If you delete this page, then people will make pages for each individual fad, or make the YTMND page far bigger with lists of fads. kietotheworld 21:55 14 May 2006 (BST)
 * rename (Yes, I know I just made the vote 1-1-1). YTMND fans are a little full of themselves. Nothing YTMND has ever spawned has been popular enough to even register as a "fad". I would have voted for delete but kietotheworld makes a very good point above, that this keeps out dozens of little YTMND-fancruft subpages. --Bachrach44 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

KEEEEEEP
 * Delete all YTMNDcruft, no exceptions. We cannot appease hostile powers by granting them colonies. Melchoir 22:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * YTMNDers aren't all hostile. Just some of them.  Let's not punish the honest ones because of the actions of a few rogues.  While I am for the deletion of this, I disagree with your reasoning. Crazyswordsman 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am appeased by having this article. --158.123.153.254 12:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thunderbunny 22:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to YTMND. Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely associated internet videos. NatusRoma | Talk 22:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to YTMND. The list has grown way too long with some entries not really counting as fads. I suggest us list the largest fads (top 15 "hall of fame" fads) in the fads section of YTMND, then redirect the article. If we really would like a list of YTMND fads, might as well use www.ytmnd.com/wiki/index.php?title=YTMND_Fads&action=history the list on YTMND's wiki (which was merged from the article on the 11th). Then link it from the YTMND article's "External links" section. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 22:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this page was made because the YTMND page was getting too long. I see no difference between this and any other page that was split because of the main article being too long. Furthermore, if you go to the talk page you will see that the page has been listed as a source for articles twice.  And lastly, as, kietotheworld said, it will discourage creation of each individual fad page which will definitely happen if this is deleted or redirected.VegaDark 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is composed entirely of original research, and so the content does not belong on Wikipedia at all, let alone in its own article. Melchoir 23:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every fad listed is (or if it isn't already can be) linked to a YTMND or several YTMND's as a source, hence it not being OR. As far as YTMND pages being a reliable source, obviously they cannot be one for anything EXCEPT proving their own existence, which is exactly what it would be doing in this case. VegaDark 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Virtually none of them are so sourced, nor is there an indication that they ever will be. More importantly, the judgement that a fad is a fad is original research which cannot be backed up by a couple of links; it is a synthesis of the entire site, which we are incompetent to provide without secondary literature. The organization of the article is also OR; how are we to judge what is "most popular"? It's a joke. Melchoir 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that the way it is currently presented is OR as to what constitutes a fad. Perhaps it should state a requirement to be considered a fad is a certain number of keywords or another such measure. Popularity can be determined by keyword count as well. VegaDark 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually suggested putting in citations. However, some of us were against it because it attracts vandalism. Crazyswordsman 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Only the major fads deserve mention, and should be on the main YTMND page. The fact that people will make their own pages for the fad is irrelevant.  They'll just get deleted (speedily, too, no doubt). Danny Lilithborne 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely delete. Listcruft, no sources, few if any claims to notability, few enough that they could be included at the main article.  Let's not give webcruft a beachhead. JDoorj a m     Talk 02:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep It clarifies many of the fads for someone who does not know about YTMND. If you must get rid of this page, at least merge it with the main article. Lalala1087 (Four edits, three to this AfD) JDoorj a m    Talk 
 * Delete, as JDoorJam. These rather sad derivative works do not become fads by mere association with the original YTMND.  To qualify as a fad requires popularity (or at least awareness) outside its core constituency. These fail that simple test, because no-one gives a toss. -- GWO
 * Weak Delete - Memes are unencyclopedic bullshit that no one gives a damn after a few weeks, apart from the Drama types who think that funny pictures on the internet should be documented forever because they profoundly affected their un-lives. However, if we delete this list of things that only the die hard YTMND guys care about, then it's bound to crop up in the main article, and unbalance it.  So whereas I don't want to see this list on Wikipedia, it may be a necessary evil. - Hahnch  e  n 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally sub-trivial, unencyclopedic. Sample line: "Adverb, inkdrinker, and tehpwner2, three YTMND users who downvoted almost every single site that they came across. Inkdrinker, being the most infamous due to his comments on each page he gives a 1 to."  Are there really people out there who think this is what an encyclopedia article should be like?!? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete On it's own wiki perhaps, but definitely not here --Falcon9x5 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The information is verifiable and encyclopedic. I'm not particularly interested in it, but I'm also not interested in Inuit mythology. I'd vote "keep" for that as well, though. --Ashenai 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is a random collection of original research about a non-notable subject and will likely always remain so.  --Hamiltonian 15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep quite a number of articals link to it and "Fad" YTMND's make up a large portion of the site Deuxhero 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If this article is deleted we'll have even more trouble monitoring the vandalism that YTMND members constantly hurl upon Wikipedia, not only that but we'll also need to monitor individual fad articles, I say we keep this article and sever a finger so that we can save the arm. --TheChimp 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Fads are an important part of YTMND and essentially what made it popular, if the Picard Song is any indication. Pikawil 21:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.92.85 (talk • contribs)
 * Transwiki and delete or Cleanup and merge with YTMND. Clearly this is a great resource.  However, it is not encyclopedic. Crazyswordsman 22:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And if we go the cleanup route, the only fads that should be saved are:
 * Picard
 * Batman
 * Safety
 * Vader
 * Snape
 * Facial
 * Peppers
 * Connery
 * Khan Crazyswordsman 23:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge This is a very good reference for people who use YTMND. True, the article does need some clean up, but memes and fads are part of the Wikipedia, are they not?  If not then there are many many articles that need to be promptly deleted.  Also, I doubt that anybody would argue that YTMND is not a highly visited and influential website. Tigeriz
 * Strong Keep This site is an excellent reference and has helped me find the names of many songs from YTMND fads. I think it's important to keep it! Ohana 03:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep However, this could use something of a clean-up. Some time ago, it was very nicely organized - of course, it got deleted. If it is deleted, I'd suggest the notables be stuck under the YTMND main article. This could be shorter, and, as said, a lot of this could go on its own wiki. zachol 03:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Same as user Tigeriz Johhny-turbo 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect, and protect. Only notable to members of the forum itself. Anything that has attained forther notability should be mentioned in the main article. -Sean Curtin 05:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is anyone actually going to clean this up? Because not being a YTMND forum member, which seems to be the sole requisite of knowing what a fad is, I'd just delete everything.  How many of this are verifiable fads?  Does anyone actually care about them after a week? - Hahnch  e  n 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Every fad is sacred, every fad is great. Although they may just pop up and disappear. One get's a much better understanding of ytmnd if you know the old fads. I was very thankful to read through all the fads, when starting my interest for ytmnd. Also I think smaller fads are also welcome, as they also may have siginificance later -Shiut 10:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like junk.  Grue   14:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This article has been around for a long time, and has survived numerous AFD's. Sources should include a search url from YTMND to prove each fad, as per my suggestion in the talk page a while back. Fyrestorm 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With the intention that it be cleaned up a lot. Now, I'm happy to help you clean up this thing, but I won't do it alone. Crazyswordsman 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. It's going to take alot of work. Fyrestorm 05:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * speedy keep this please it is important to list we are not a paper encyclopedia Yuckfoo 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not an indescriminate collection of info, either. A list like this should be kept, just not here.  Useful doesn't always mean encyclopedic. Crazyswordsman 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge notable content with YTMD. If the YTMD article is getting "too long" then it needs trimming, rewriting, etc.: spilling over into a list is not the answer. -- Jon Dowland 10:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge It's useful for reference, but doesn't deseve it's own article - HurriKaty
 * Delete WP:NOT for random lists of supposed fads and OR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, though, this stuff really isn't OR (or at least a bit of it isn't), as it can be verified with links. It DOES have some POV though (the nn fads which don't even fill up one page), which is also criteria for deletion. Crazyswordsman 02:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Several variations of fads were showcased on Attack of the Show (Facial Expressions, Picard, and Dire Straights) and the site was a fixture of several radio interviews with the Baumans as a result of the E-Baums World fisaco. People who don't "get" YTMND also don't happen to know any of this. Picard Song and Batman: Ulleeeaaaaah attratced tremendous records of site visits, and two of them were part of a feature in the Wall Street Journal, again, people who don't "get" YTMND don't actually know any of this. Dr. R.K.Z
 * This doesn't explain why the fads should have their own article. If you are suggesting that people are making incorrect judgements by not "getting" it, the article has somewhat failed in its purpose to make people "get" it. So I don't see how you are endorsing it. -- Jon Dowland 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It shows a clear history of the site and is really useful to look for the origin of a fad; you can't find that information anywhere else. Lord Oppy
 * Delete This article is just full of worthless self-congratulation of absolutely no interest outside the YTMND community. Kundor 20:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable and narcissistic Schicksal 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a knowledge of YTMND fads is important to understanding the humor of the much sites. -Shiut 03:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean up the list really is important to readers as it bring the magnitude of social impact that YTMND.com has had on the internet. This list has been around for quite a long time on Wikipedia and it's not seen any dispute until now... Kujila
 * Keep and Cleanup Not cruft, is necessary to understanding many of the sites on YTMND and the internet. If it is kept though, clean it up by purging non-notable "fads." Also recommend to delete links to soundtrack, as they are illegal downloads. Zig 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep/cleanup It can get messy, but keep it. People who appreciate YTMND value this subject, as arcane and meaningless as it may be to others.  People who don't see the point of YTMND can keep fans of it here instead of running rampant putting useless vanity pages for every fad all over Wikipedia.  I'm not the first to say it here but Wikipedia is not paper.  It should have room for all sorts of ridiculous subjects.  Sleeper99999 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's far worse cruft out there. CASE 10:34, 18 May 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.