Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSFW. A hunter shoots a bear!


 * 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   delete. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NSFW. A hunter shoots a bear!

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

New Youtube advert. No indication of WP:Notability. A small amount of google hits and not a lot huge number of views. noq (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Is the fact that this might be "the first video, on YouTube, with an interactive typebox to allow users to select which video segment to see next" a good enough reason for an article to be notable? If we can prove it. TiriPon (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Category:Relisted AfD debates
 * Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412  T 17:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Your or my belief that something is the first, the biggest, the worst, the best, or whatever does not constitute a strong argument for its notability, in the sense Wikipedia sees notability: WP:N. I agree that it is innovative and clever, but "I like it" is not a good argument for keeping the article. Look for significant coverage of the video/viral ad campaign in reliable and independent secondary sources, such as coverage in media blogs which are themselves considered reliable sources. If a YouTube gets coverage in newspapers or news programs, that is better substantiation of notability than your opinion or mine as to how important or revolutionary it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs)
 * Speedy Delete per all. Not encyclopedic in any way whatsoever. Yousou (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A complete absence of Wikipedia requirements for notability. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources to cite supposed claims of notability (or what little claims there were). Fails WP:N completely. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 03:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 19:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonexistant assertion of notability, borderline advertisement. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently notable since this is covered in several major non-English online sources like in Het Nieuwsblad, Affari Italiani , Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger and de:Werben & Verkaufen . More than enough to build a proper article. – sgeureka t•c 16:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Per request on my talk page. I closed this as delete, a valid close in this case, but the requestor would like the sources above discussed. Courcelles 03:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a youtube guide. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem to meet WP:WEB#1 quite nicely. Could you explain why you feel it doesn't? Hobit (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Checking out what google.de finds these two weeks later, I've also found coverage by Contagious Magazine, in an article called "Die besten interaktiven Virals" by de:Werben & Verkaufen , a short online blurb in de:Horizont (Zeitschrift) , and in Rheinische Post . A press release (in German) says the clip is available in German now. I probably could have dug up more coverage if I had gone farther than the ninth google.de page or if I used google.com. – sgeureka t•c 07:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although English sources appear nonexistent, there are articles in at least two Belgian newspapers (Het Nieuwsblad and De Standaard . a search on google news also shows an article in La Vanguardia  in addition to sources already presented above. All together I think the subject meets notability criteria as presented in wp:WEB or wp:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources, especially Contagious Magazine and Het Nieuwsblad look to be more than enough for WP:N or WP:WEB#1. Hobit (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Are there any sources that show that it is still talked about - they all seem to be from around the time it was released and seem "15 minutes of fame". noq (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * September 20 in Metro (British newspaper), September 20 in Les Échos (France), and September 21 on dandad.org (no wikipedia article but it is used as a source quite often on here). – sgeureka t•c 13:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ephemeral advertising campaign. Multiple outcomes based on choices made sounds like a rip-off of Myst and dozens of games before and after that — it's hard to see this ad campaign as having any sort of historical importance. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when did "historical importance" become a criteria for inclusion on wikipedia? This meets wp:gng, so it should be included. Yoenit (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's the first appearance of it's kind. Maybe doesn't seem notable, but obviously it'll be followed by others, and we'd like to remember how it started. Its one of the small things, that can change the everydays. Arcsinx (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Has it been shown to be the "first of its kind"? noq (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * some of the sources make that claim. My own experiences say otherwise, but... Hobit (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Yoenit (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Category:Relisted AfD debates
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 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.