Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful rickrolls


 * 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.

List of successful rickrolls
The result was merge selectively to Rickrolling. For now I will simply redirect the page. Editors who wish to copy across any appropriate content may do so from the latest version of the article, paying due attention to WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:NOT and other relevant content policies. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. I had initially closed the discussion as "merge", but have revised my view after a discussion on my talk page with an editor who challenged that closure. I am persuaded that most of those in favour of merger did not actually oppose deletion, and that the deletionists had a much more compelling argument: that since all the properly sourced material had been copied from Rickrolling, there is nothing to merge. Many thanks to Flatscan for taking the time to set this out. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a serious nomination, despite rickrolling below not being so. Definition of scope is unclear, content is not encyclopedic. Combination of information like this into a list is WP:OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merger is an acceptable alternative to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with the nomination's concerns. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge any reliably sourced material that was covered in reasonable detail back into Rickrolling. ansh666 06:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, do whatever we talked about way down there. ansh666 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Oh wait, this is serious? Ignore the message on my talk page then. Anyway, I created this because it was getting too big for the main article, and as long as it's well-sourced, I say we keep it. The lede might have to be reworked a bit, but I'm not seeing the OR you're talking about. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 12:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who defines "notable" when it comes to rickrolls? Who determines what makes a rickroll "successful"? That's what we don't have in this list, and what we need per WP:LSC (WP:CSC has good examples of solid criteria). If we are the one who determines what makes a rickroll notable, and cherrypick which ones are "successful", it's OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the lede to answer these questions (Covered in the news and pulling off the surprise of making the prankee watch the video, respectively) and clarified a bit about what the list even is. I think that if we stick by those criteria, we'll be fine and don't have to worry about being picky-choosey. As for merging back into the main article, I think that this list is a little too long to be able to have more than a few especially notable ones there. I'm not able to check the notability of each source right now due to time constraints, but please feel free to take out any non-notable/unreliable stuff. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * merge to rickrolling and brutally prune out the junk. Even ignoring what "successful" means I see no point to having a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rickrolling. The separate article does not seem necessary, and all of the important information from can be included in List of successful rickrolls can be added to that section. Steel1943  (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - splitting well referenced list articles, seems reasonable per Supernerd. Clearly it is notable, per widespread coverage, though the article could use a more developed lead, Sadads (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rickrolling - IMHO this doesn't need to be separate, Could just shorten it & add to Examples really... - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  14:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm surprised that I'm voting to keep such a list, but the article appears to be a well-documented list of notable rickrolls, and the article is long enough to separate from the main rick-rolling page. I would switch "successful" with "notable" in the title. Orser67 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Should be changed to Notable, as listing all successful would take up lots of space and be impossible to maintain. But a list like this should stay up.  Maybe move Examples here? 139.55.207.98 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, that'd be a more fitting name. Assuming this page survives the AfD, I'd like to see it renamed. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. Meh, April Fools .... 19:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * no, not April Fools! ansh666 06:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Rickrolling. Much of the content is reliably sourced I have no problems there. I just think, given the list's size, it can be contained quite comfortably within the main Rickrolling article. The single-sentence entries (Dan Kaminsky, Michelle Obama, iPhone worm) should probably be moved the "Others" category, which itself has at least a couple examples which are unreferenced/dead linked (the Baltimore flashmob, the FM episode) and can be removed. Having a tight, well-referenced single article is preferable to me rather than having duplicated "Further reading" sections or having the first Rickroll example (GTA IV) in one article and subsequent examples in the other.  Gong   show  20:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. I lean toward inclusion in many, many cases, but this is just too far. I mean, come on. I don't think I can even make an eloquent case here. I'm at a loss for words. Scroll up and read the candidate's title. Then look away, and then read the article title again. Do you see what I mean? --Moralis (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could anyone !voting keep seriously imagine featuring this on the Main Page (yes, I know we don't usually feature lists there, just go with it)?  This is not an encyclopedic subject.  -- N  Y  Kevin   05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that it should be changed to Notable. There is no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.69.194 (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definition of scope is unclear? Yes, but that can be fixed. Content is not encyclopedic? It clearly is. Combination of information like this into a list is WP:OR? Not even close, and even if it is, defining the scope should fix it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Combination of information like this into a list is WP:OR?" - Yes, it is. If the criterion were objective (say, for an airplane crash list, at least 100 dead), it would not be OR. But who defines "Successful"? The list compiler. That is OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So rename it List of notable rickrolls like the IP and User:Orser67 said, and we'd be fine, right? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Much discussion seems to concern the notion that this article could be renamed or merged, and we'd be good to go. I'd like to point out that well over half of this article is still cruft, and most of it's irrelevant to its own subject. The first three sections before "April Fools 2008" describe events that, according to the primary author's own revamped lead, don't really qualify as rickrolls. The section immediately following concerns a security consultant talking about rickrolling. The Michelle Obama section is again appropriate, but the blurb about Barack Rolling is once again just a paragraph about a fan video. It belongs in the main article, not here. Then we're back to actual instances of rickrolling, though, as Gongshow pointed out, many of the shorter entries should be moved to the "Others" section, which should be heavily trimmed. And all of this, of course, on top of the fact that there is a Wikipedia article titled, "List of successful rickrolls", which still has me doing double-takes. I stand by my earlier !vote to delete, but if we decide to keep this thing anyway, please don't think it's going to be as simple as renaming it. --Moralis (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have correctly identified problems that need to be fixed, but problems that need to be fixed are not valid reasons for deletion. For that, we need to identify problems that need to be fixed and cannot be fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that, if we fix everything that's wrong with this article, there won't be much of an article left. I doubt that an appropriately trimmed-down version of this article would even be a controversial candidate for deletion; it'd be mostly empty, and mostly valueless, given what would be left. Hence, merging it into its main article seems, to me, like the only viable way to keep this content. --Moralis (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Smerge to Rickrolling. bd2412  T 21:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rickrolling is fine, though I share with User:Moralis a sense of astonishment that this article exists. Xoloz (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This page seems to be an indiscriminate collection of every time rick-rolling came up in the news or other significant sources. Get rid of most of the non-notable or trivial ones, then merge a few of the more significant ones to give an example of a rickroll in the main article. Turns out all of the "notable" rickrolls can be found in the history of the rickrolling article, so I'm changing my vote to a delete. But seriously, we do not need articles about every time a notable meme was pulled off. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Suggested Compromise. It appears that there is no consensus for deletion, and strong support for both keeping and merging. If this remains true at the end of this RfC, I suggest that following steps, starting with things that will have to be done whether it is kept or merged:
 * Rename to "List of notable rickrolls".
 * Write up a set of fairly strict inclusion criteria.
 * Prune out anything that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.
 * Add anything that isn't on the list but meets the inclusion criteria.
 * Post a merge proposal to Rickrolling.
 * Merge or don't merge based upon the results of that proposal.
 * This will allow everyone commenting on the merge proposal to see what it is that will be kept or merged, including the following key piece of information; how large the final list is. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. ansh666 16:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All of that point sounds reasonable to me ... with the exceptions of points #5 & #6. Might as well skip those steps and get the consensus to do the merge during this discussion, and complete the merge after this AfD closes. Steel1943  (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm behind that almost all the way (I'm not sure a Merge proposal would be better than a Move one). There's a pending Move request at the actual article's talk page right now, but that's assuming this survives. We could start the criteria over there. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic fails WP:SAL because the sourcing is about individual events that we've compiled together. By all means, mention two or three of the most notable ones to the main article, but I don't see a need to call it a merge. Good call, Crisco—I came across this one recently and thought to bring it here, but I was dissuaded thinking that Wikipedia pop culture/internet culture bias would make it a losing prospect. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that there is now an RM on the talk page, though Don't move articles at AfD should be honored. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are moving anything over, even if it is so much as a sentence, a merge is the best outcome as it will give us time to complete the move. If a deletion decision is reached, there is a risk the entire article will be deleted before the more notable rickrolls can be carried over. Its rather pointless to re-research information we already have.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And, shouldn't it be a merge/redirect for attribution purposes too? ansh666 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, though. For the most part, a merge is forever. That's why I'd rather see someone just write about a few examples on the main Rickroll page than getting involved in a formal merge, which is frequently messy and misunderstood. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All we need to do is maintain this page as a redirect, which would preserve the attribution history. We already have the information on this article, so there is no need to find it yet again. Also, how are merges messy? I've carried several out myself, and they're pretty cut and dry. Just mention you merged x article into y article in the history page and add {Merged-from|List of successful rickrolls|date=April 15, 2014}} to the talk page (but with a second {).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In my experience, merging is frequently misunderstood, and attribution requirements can trip editors up. But whatever, I accept that that's probably what's going to happen here, and I should at least be glad it likely won't be kept outright. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete this article; no opposition to restoring the section in Rickrolling. The title is not a useful redirect, and Special:WhatLinksHere/List of successful rickrolls shows relatively few incoming links. This article was split from Rickrolling as and . Two unsourced items were added and removed. I second BDD's reference to WP:Merge what?: there is nothing to merge. Merging this page back will just confuse the WP:Copying within Wikipedia situation. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Most people are proposing adding some of the content of this article to the now-empty example section in the Rickrolling article. Some of the better-sourced examples from this list can be added in. I voted merge not because I want a middle ground, but because there is legitimate information that can be merged and a valid reason to do this. There is in fact something to merge.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to merge – i.e., copy from List of successful rickrolls – because the full original is in Rickrolling's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rickrolling&action=history page history]. Consensus on which items to retain might be reached here, but that content dispute is orthogonal to the copying issue. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense - I didn't check the main page's history. But, then what do we call it? Unsplit? ansh666 06:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Unsplit" is pretty good, if it catches on, but I prefer if participants would write out the slightly longer "delete and restore from Rickrolling's history" to avoid ambiguity. On a side note, searching for "unsplit" returned WP:Articles for deletion/Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture from 2009, where I made a similar argument. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the merge recommendations argue for keeping the List of successful rickrolls article title as a redirect or for using any of the edits in its history: they are compatible with a delete outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because a normal merge leaves behind the redirect by default, so most people don't feel the need to say "merge/redirect". See WP:Merging. ansh666 08:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but an unwritten argument should be given little weight when answered directly. I am satisfied that you and Spirit of Eagle have annotated or amended your opinions. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete with Fire -- Fails the basic WP:ENC test. jps (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral: There are plenty of reliable sources among them all, rickrolling is certainly notable, and perhaps a lot of these incidents are notable, but I don't see any consistent criteria for inclusion or a whole lot in common among the listees. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2014 (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.