Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation desert kill


 * 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 delete per WP:SNOW, and article creator also acknowledges impending deletion. Kimchi.sg 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation desert kill
Non-notable video made by "a really bored guy on holidays" and hosted on YouTube. It appears to be vanity, and also violates the crystal ball clause of WP:NOT. Originally prodded by me, prod tag removed by only editor. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 07:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OPERATION DESERT KILL IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! Dakoolest 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Dakoolest--Dakoolest 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment User has no other edits. Also, the editor of the article blanked this article's listing on the AfD log - I have restored it. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what the crystal ball clause is so i can fix it. Also on that note how is it being Vane and in what way? I don't want this page to be deleted because i believe that it isn't really breaking any rules.- The Burnanator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Sorry, but this video is not notable. DarthVad e r 08:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do i have to do to make it notable?- The Burnanator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment The crystal ball clause is mentioned on WP:NOT. Also, please check out WP:N for more info about notability. Based on what the article says right now, the video is something someone made up in his spare time (see WP:NFT), and doesn't seem to be very popular outside of YouTube. I'll withdraw the vanity part since it's pretty clear you didn't make the movies yourself. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Trust me dude, It's on other websites as well. The only reason that the link is to you tube is because it is the best quality one that will give people the most infomation about it.By saying that it was made in "his spare time" is only there to give people more information on the subject at hand. - The Burnanator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment The only problem is that searching for Operation Desert Kill returns one hit on Google (two on Yahoo), and the hits aren't to these videos. And whether they're on other sites or not, the videos have less than 50 YouTube views combined. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifically what part of the deletion policy to i not follow. If it's the verifiability part, please specifically tell me what i can do to pass that.The burnanator 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Check out WP:RS. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability not established. Google hasn't heard of it, three (related??) hits on author's name. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. Weregerbil 09:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is there a rule that if the subject of an article doesn't exist on google or Yahoo that it is considered unreliable. Come on, Just if something doesn't happen to come up on a search engine that is always 100% reliable, why should it be deleted. Also it is new on the internet and it will catch on (I think)... The burnanator 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You THINK, but you don't know, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article does not prove the subject's notability with cited, verifiable sources; this is independent of Google hits, though those results back up that judgement right now. If it catches on, great, it'll belong on WP, but it's too early to expect that now. HumbleGod 09:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is a proposed guideline that if something is allegedly an Internet phenomenon but it doesn't show up on Google, it's non-notable. In this case, the article doesn't even claim that the subject is an Internet phenomenon, just that the creator hopes it will be. --Metropolitan90 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above reasons. HumbleGod 09:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No present notability, no reliable sources GassyGuy 10:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, it's not that I have anything against the videos or anyone involved with them, but more that I don't see their usefulness on Wikipedia; we clearly can't have an article for every video ever made, so there has to be a cutoff point. Cutoff points favored by many editors can be found at WP:WEB or WP:MEME. Per WP:MEME, this article's subject has no major media exposure; a web meme like all your base, however, would be encyclopedically notable because of mass media attention. Other questions to ask include, "Will this article be useful and helpful to people a year from now? Ten years? A hundred years?" Is the article's subject notable enough to be historically relevant? Make sense? Thank you all for your time, and I hope that none of you take this as a comment on the work itself; I wish you nothing but success. Luna Santin 11:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, you guys raise a good point, so if it does become popular, you'll expect to see me again. Thanks for your help The burnanator 13:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Alphachimp   talk  14:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per any youtube link thats passed around for a week or so and forgotten about. Artw 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Incidentally, the AfdAnons template here seems premature, given that there has been no vote stacking or sock puppetry. Other than Dakoolest, no one has voted to keep the article. —Caesura(t) 15:48, 8 July 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.