Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pancakes!


 * 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pancakes!

 * – ( Pancakes!|View AfD View log )

OK, this was watched by the New York Times, but why does that make it encyclopedic? Its a video of a guy making pancakes. How is that notable, am I missing something here? Or does any video with 3,312,000 views make it inherently notable and accepted on here? If you watch the video I can't see how it is even remotely encyclopedic]. Or do the people dictate what is encyclopedic because people like to view it?Given that some people (in my view) have very strange tastes in music and general viewing which happen to be popular, that would make Ludacris somebody way more notable and talented as a musician than somebody like Larry Carlton or somebody just because of more views? Mm I'm not buying it..In reality its a video of a student in his flat making pancakes with a poor quality backing track. Might have been newsworthy at one point to report for page views, but encyclopedic?? must we really cover every youtube video which the media reports? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep From the article "The video was watched by The New York Times and as a result, was featured on Good Morning America." and it is cited. That would be significant coverage by multiple reliable sources.  No matter how stupid you think the video is, the citations within pass reliable sources.  The one source claimed dead is actually behind a pay wall now.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - OP states WP:IDONTLIKEIT and unencyclopedic - both of which are specifically listed as reasons not to use in an AfD. However, I think Dennis has it right. Multiple coverage by multiple reliable sources. Notability is met. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but surely the decision to keep articles should be based on their encyclopedic value? Just because the news covers something does that mean we must as an encyclopedia? Because based on the "multiple reliable sources" principle we could technically cover every news story of every newspaper of every day of the year. Miriam the Bunny Woman from Oregon has hundreds of reliable sources covering her, but in the end the majority considered it unencyclopedic material.There has to come a line where, yes reliable news sources cover the topic but it actually encyclopedic? Where are the books and magazines discussing this Pancake video? What is encyclopedic about a student making pancakes with a poor quality backing track? You are arguing that it is media/public hype or infatuation which makes this notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Encyclopedic value to whom? I thought the idea of having an independent criteria for inclusion was to take the subjectivity out of the guidelines. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Dennis covers my response exactly. The criteria is there to remove subjectivity entirely from the discussion. Your statements reflect a subjective outlook on the subject. I review policy. Personally, I could care less about Pancakes!, but the notability is met, and as such, the article should be kept. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the extensive coverage beyond newspapers? Based on your outlook without subjectivity and based purely on sources you think it would be feasible to write about every single story multiple newspapers choose to publish? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No criteria at Wikipedia calls for "extensive coverage beyond newspapers". The criteria in WP:GNG clearly states "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  This meets that criteria, and the citations are within the article itself, demonstrating it can be verified.  You can't just make up terms and your own criteria for deletion.  As for any other article that exists, may I direct you to What about X article?, which explains why that isn't considered a valid argument for deletion.  It is perfectly fine if you think this is a stupid subject for an article.  Hell, I would agree.  It doesn't matter what you and I think of the subject matter when it comes to the criteria, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Someone who creates articles on Justin Bieber's hair really can't complain that this video is also notable.  By my standards, 99% of wikipedia is crap information, but there's no reason to delete it.  This is what human fill their lives with and thus is "notable."--Milowent • talkblp-r  00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bieber's hair was intended as a joke as clearly explained at the AFD!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, sure, so you said after the fact, probably because you prefer the Rachel haircut.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:49, 14 April 2011 (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.