Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes


 * 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 Nacon kantari  14:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable YouTube memes
Notable as defined by?.... As per YTMND, we are not the FAQ or howto for YouTube. Where are the multiple non-trivial references in reliable independent secondary sources from which this article is derived? Guy 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The people have made significant news coverage in their own countries. I have listed many links to newspapers and media sources which are independent of YouTube - and I didn't even use them all because I thought it was overkill. If someone doesn't have media coverage, they aren't worthy of inclusion here. That's simple. I don't even think you've read the sources. (JROBBO 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep. There is probably a great deal of media coverage for many YouTube memes, unlike YTMND.  I would suggest cleaning the article down to those which are verifiable, but deletion is overkill. Delete, after reading the below comments that articles already exist for all the notable memes, I have changed my vote.&mdash;   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete The few Youtube memes that truly are notable either have their own articles or are covered elsewhere. We are not a guide to Youtube trivia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Starblind. The entries that meet WP:BIO already have standalone articles and should be tied together with a category (if at all), as was done before this article was created.  Those that do not meet WP:BIO shouldn't be included here or have standalone articles.--Isotope23 14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete its weak point for massive damage. Danny Lilithborne 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If they're truly notable (not that there acutally is such a thing as a "notable YouTube meme"), they'll have their own article already. --Aaron 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and possibly redirect to YouTube. Tarret 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. List is too short to serve a useful purpose, and the content not having own articles is YouTube trivia. -- Northgrove 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is going to be nothing but a spam magnet. Resolute 00:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - hang on please!!!! It's not fair to just delete this article - I wrote this article to stop the squabbles about notability, because after all these people derive their notability solely from YouTube, not from anywhere else. All the people on this article have had significant media coverage as I have established by the references from news sources and other newspapers. I spent several hours sourcing articles that made these people notable. I don't think there is anyone else worthy of inclusion here - and I'm willing to keep deleting stuff unless it is notable so the spam argument has no relevance. YouTube has given people significant media coverage, and I was trying to establish this in an article. What's wrong with that? This was meant as a replacement for the standalone articles, not an article in addition and for the most part I merged those articles into this one. It's not fair to just delete all my work. (JROBBO 05:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Merge to YouTube with a little pruning. The viral internet video phenoms are a critical part of YouTube's success (and billion-dollar price tag). Tracking the ones that have received substantial news coverage is helpful to readers, and I think more helpful than a boquet of small articles. I know editors here passionately hate the infiltration of internet cruft, and rightly so, but if the New York Times and the Washington Post deign to mention something, I think we should humor them. William Pietri 07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a compromise I believe is beneficial - merging unencyclopaedic content to one article isn't always best in that it ignores the premise that it probably shouldn't be represented in the first place. This is less offensive than individual articles on these subjects, but I have to agree with Isotope that it's a matter of either they pass the guidelines and get an article or they don't pass them and get mentioned nowhere. GassyGuy 10:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Choose the ones that are truly notable (e.g. have also been popular outside YouTube), split them off, and delete the remainder. -- Gray  Porpoise Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Only the ones with huge impact outside of Youtube, like lonelygirl15, geriatric and Smosh should be kept, and hey- they have their own articles! chuck this away...Leemorrison 18:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If this gets deleted, split the Judson Laipply section to its own article. This guy is definitely notable, as the citations in that section prove. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Judson has a standalone article, all that needs to happen is the redirect that was placed there when this article was created needs to be reverted.--Isotope23 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I don't see any difference between Chuck Norris Facts, All your base are belong to us and this article. And, in my opinion, all of them deserve an article on Wikipedia. The YouTube memes are a phenomenon to be described in its own article. --Angelo 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You Tube is a phenomenon. Virtually all of what originates from You Tube is not.  AYBABTU and the Chuck Norris jokes have truely been widespread internet fads.  Neither I, nor anyone I know ever heard of a single one of the people involved in this article. Resolute 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a shame, because at least three of them have come up in news articles recently. Try searching Google News for Geriatric1927, Judson Laipply, and Lonelygirl15; I get 5, 33, and 243 news articles in the last month. A quick search in the New York Times archives gets one mention for Geriatric1927 and 12 for Lonelygirl15. William Pietri 06:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're completely right, William Pietri. In addition, the Youtube memes have been popular even among Italian news, such as Repubblica and Corriere della Sera, the two most sold newspapers in the country (look at their website and you'll find articles about several YouTube memes). --Angelo 13:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Geriatric1927, Lonelygirl15, & Judson Laipply all have individual Wikipedia articles (though Judson's redirects here right now). I don't think anyone is suggesting that articles on YouTube contributors who meet WP:BIO be removed, but having a catchall article isn't really necessary.  These individuals should have standalone articles tied together with a category.--Isotope23 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the catchall article isn't necessary, which is why I'm for a merge. Eventually the section may grow too big, in which case I think we'll need the catchall. William Pietri 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per nom -- † Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Pjacobi 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not encyclopedic. - Longhair\talk 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Anomo 01:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Any YouTube "meme" that passes notability will/should have its own article (and own category, in fact). This appears to be a dumping ground for stuff that doesn't pass notability requirements on their own. If it's notable, it'll pass scrutiny on its own. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The big problem here is that people object to individual articles on YouTube users (I had to fight uphill to get Lonelygirl15 kept&mdash;the most notable YouTuber ever!), so a compromise solution is to merge all but the most notable of them to a list; however, this compromise solution is sabotaged if this article too is deleted. It's senseless. Everyking 08:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, removing any unsourced information. The link to YouTube makes these people more notable, not less, than the other junk 'internet memes' we have regrettably decided to include in this project. The Land 09:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per Everyking. Unlike List of YTMND fads which I voted to shoot down, this list is well sourced.  If we enforce the need for multiple third party sources then it won't just be a dumping ground for crap.  The reason why so many people have voted to delete above is based purely on the really crap name that someone chose.  It would be a lot more useful to merge the Youtubers into this page rather than to keep them on the increasingly large and stupid List of Internet phenomena.  For example, there are multiple sources for BowieChick, including a Houston Chronicle article dated October 2, which should be way after her 15 minutes. - Hahnch  e  n 15:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, most seem to have notability established. Stilgar135 20:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep the notability claims are all sourced. at least one article was just deleted partially on the grounds it could be merged here. i respectfully (and unusually) disagree with khaosworks here. notability is different than requiring a unique article ... that's simply an organizational decision. one could similarly argue that any facet (section) of an article should require it's own article if it is indeed notable. Derex 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; possibly categorify; notable entries should get their own articles. As is, this is a cruft magnet. Borisblue 02:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all individual articles with this one to eliminate clutter. These people are notable, but they are notable because of youtube, so should be listed here. Buttle 03:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and return the category of notable youtube users. This is a pointless list, which will ultimately turn into a mess in time (as there will ultimately be more notable youtube users in the future). Belongs in a category.-- Andeh 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notable "YouTube memes" is an oxymoron, like "notable Kleenex tissues": they're disposable, useless, and of little interest. - Nunh-huh 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If any Kleenex tissues get to be as notable as these people, with press attention, then we will need to create content for them, too. Everyking 06:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per List of YTMND fads, the ones that actually are notable can get their own articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is kept, it badly needs to be renamed. Terrible, terrible name for the article. --Xyzzyplugh 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep by creating individual articles As far as I am concerned I do not believe it should be kept. However, Wikipedia rules clearly states, "if an article can be cited by multiple independent sources and is WP:V" then is must be kept. Valoem   talk  17:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have created individual articles are rved former ones. This article can be removed now. Article Emmalina needs to be Wikified. Valoem   talk  18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See, they aren't going to let you do that; they redirected Emmalina to YouTube. The only way to get in content about YouTubers of second-rank notability is to compile them all on one page like this. Everyking 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, b/c seems interesting, yo! --164.107.92.120 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of good references. --- RockMFR 05:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, if they are truly notable there will be enough information from reliable sources to create separate articles on all of them. Links to their articles could be put on the YouTube article, if you want a centralized place for them. -- Kjkolb 05:53, 26 October 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.