Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Box in a Box


 * 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 No Consensus. There are arguments for deletion, merger, and retention; arguments for notability of the topic are persuasive, but should be documented better in the article by formal citation. It is unclear whether the article should be merged or kept as a stand-alone article based on arguments presented. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My Box in a Box

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is too umimportant, and having a million views on youtube doesn't change that and neither does it being a parody of a popular videoRodrigue 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails notability guidelines for web-content - mentions in published sources appear to be either trivial or non RS. --Colindownes 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. thecomedian 12:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't delete, relevent content, true facts, current pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.203.187 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-09 19:44:04
 * If this is deleted, then the Dick in a Box page should be deleted to. No one has tagged that yet. And the fact that this is tagged when the other one isn't means that the user that tagged this for deletion is probably misogynistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.135.31 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-10 22:35:15
 * Delete:who ever said that last comment,Dick in a box is much more notable than this article for several reasons:It has more that ten times the amount of views,it was created by a well known broadcasting company,and more importantly,there are plenty of videos on youtube with one or two million views,and this is no different from the rest,but dick in a box is the 3rd most watched video,inlike most othersRodrigue 17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete:Dick in a box is famous,and this version is proof of its fame,but it is not alone a notable subject for an article192.30.202.18 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is part of modern pop culture and should not be deleted. A pop cultural phenomenon on YouTube is no less "real" than one that originated on network TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.135.162 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-12 00:54:56
 * Don't delete. This video, along with many others, are an important lesson in how social media and networks like YouTube, MySpace, and even Wikipedia, among others work. Just because it is a parody, doesn't make it unimportant. I would say the opposite is true. It shows how the right online content can propel communication across all forms of media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.170.80 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-13 22:28:19
 * Don't delete. Attracted national media attention (Olberman, MSNBC et. al.) User:Gerardw:Gerardw 19 March 2007
 * Yawn. Everyone wants to be famous. Trite. Useless. Ditch it. 21 March 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.53.116 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-22 02:52:00
 * Comment: This AfD nomination appears to have never been listed properly. It is listed now – Qxz 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I added the not-a-ballot tag because I'm concerned that people have been rallied to vote. I am also concerned that there may be some sockpuppetry going on here.  Pablothegreat85 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... if they were rallied to vote, it was two weeks ago. So I doubt there's much chance of a problem now. See the comment dates; as I said in my previous comment, the listing was incomplete – Qxz 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Dick in a Box as a parody. LaMenta3 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per LaMenta3. Realkyhick 06:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Suggest changing the internal link on Dick in a Box into an external link to the video. FiggyBee 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit it down to a sentence and merge with Viral video. PaddyM 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim and merge per LaMenta 3. -- Win777 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pop culture trivia. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per LaMenta3. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete BlueLotas 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * merge per LaMenta3 X96lee15 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. This is a good example of the power of new technologies. You Tube allows ordinary people with limited resources to produce a parody of works (SNL Dick in the Box) produced by multibillion dollar companies. Before the advent of such technologies, the likelyhood of such a parody succeeding would be non existent. This article documents the effect of technologies such as You Tube on the evolution of the media. --Dan 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC) — Danbeck0208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * merge per LaMenta3 - insert a sentance into Dick in a Box Cornell Rockey 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable internet meme that passes WP:WEB. As to those that are saying "merge per LaMenta3," who only really said "merge as a parody," how is that even an argument. Where is there consensus that being a parody is grounds to merge anything on Wikipedia. Where, for example, do we merge "Weird Al" Yankovic? Essentially I am contending that nothing resembligna reason for merging or deleting has yet been given.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * merge per LaMenta3 -- It's a spoof on a spoof. I'm sure there were videos made spoofing this one, but do they need their own article?  No, not popular enough.  This one is, but it's still based entirely on Dick in a Box--just needs a subsection.  Mouse 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one wrote aan article on them, though. Back to the point, though, why does this only need a subsection?  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:WEB criterion 1. Major blogs, Philadelphia papers, MSNBC.  She got her picture in Rolling Stone for this.  How is this non-notable? Matt Fitzpatrick 06:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't merge... yet.  It's premature in an AfD discussion, and probably generating a big compromise effect already.  Merging and deletion need to be considered in their own time, in their own space, according to their own criteria.  There are certain reasons for merging, but I haven't seen any of those reasons mentioned so far on this page.  Merge shouldn't be used as a synonym for weak delete.  Matt Fitzpatrick 06:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Honestly, I had heard of this a few weeks ago and when I saw this on AFD, I was expecting to vote the other direction as a cheap Dick in a Box knockoff.  I did not realize that this has received so much direct and very non-trivial coverage such that I can only give this a firm and solid endorsement to keep.  RFerreira 05:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per outstanding non-trivial coverage, i.e. Rolling Stone, MSNBC, and major newspapers. Burntsauce 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does not strictly fail any of the notability guidelines; the Wikipedia "be liberal" pillar prevails here I think. Notability is very relative and this video would certainly be classed as notable in the university student community and I suspect other similar groups. This alone is sufficient rational for a keep decision on my part. 24.226.31.7 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dick in a box as a separate sub section. Berserkerz Crit 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? This isn't a vote but rather a discussion.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhh I know? That's why my opinion on this discussion is that it be merged as a sub section. It doesn't deserve it's own article. Did you want me to say Delete instead? Berserkerz Crit 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care how anyone feels as long as they back it up. Specifically, does it fail WP:WEB?  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 22:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well duh I would say Keep if it didn't fail WP:WEB. It's just a parody of the original more popular skit. It's millions of views are credited to the original because no one would watch that if they didn't want to see the original parodied. It fails WP:NOTE and WP:WEB so it's still Merge. Berserkerz Crit 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * delete - a video on YouTube. Has the coverage been of a nature that we can be certain anyone will care 3 months from now? Is this bigger than the Paris Hilton sex tape? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:54, 31 March 2007 (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.