Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Crowe's jockstrap


 * 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 kept. bd2412 T 17:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Russell Crowe's jockstrap

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe this satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. For example, the article states that nobody even seems to know who owns it now. Hardly the hallmark of a significant piece of recent film memorabilia (older stuff is a different matter). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems laughable but this item has received a lot of WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the sources already in the article, a quick GNews search nets
 * WP:SUSTAINED does not apply here as this item did not receive brief bursts of news coverage but rather continued coverage over a period of multiple months, beginning in April 2018, again in May and July 2018, then in September 2018 and now in November 2018.
 * Again, I'm aware that some people might find this subject ridiculous to include but it's not our job to decide what reliable sources should write about. Regards So  Why  08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Our job, as editors of an encyclopedia, is to exercise editorial discretion and sound judgment across the project. I agree that there's plenty of news coverage about this jockstrap, enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia, but with the appropriate context and weight, in my opinion. A standalone article, rather than a sentence or two in the Cinderella Man article, seems excessive to me. I also do not think mentioning this jockstrap in other articles such as Russell Crowe or Blockbuster LLC is really warranted. This was a dumb gimmick and it should be covered in Wikipedia with that perspective. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SUSTAINED does not apply here as this item did not receive brief bursts of news coverage but rather continued coverage over a period of multiple months, beginning in April 2018, again in May and July 2018, then in September 2018 and now in November 2018.
 * Again, I'm aware that some people might find this subject ridiculous to include but it's not our job to decide what reliable sources should write about. Regards So  Why  08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Our job, as editors of an encyclopedia, is to exercise editorial discretion and sound judgment across the project. I agree that there's plenty of news coverage about this jockstrap, enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia, but with the appropriate context and weight, in my opinion. A standalone article, rather than a sentence or two in the Cinderella Man article, seems excessive to me. I also do not think mentioning this jockstrap in other articles such as Russell Crowe or Blockbuster LLC is really warranted. This was a dumb gimmick and it should be covered in Wikipedia with that perspective. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Our job, as editors of an encyclopedia, is to exercise editorial discretion and sound judgment across the project. I agree that there's plenty of news coverage about this jockstrap, enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia, but with the appropriate context and weight, in my opinion. A standalone article, rather than a sentence or two in the Cinderella Man article, seems excessive to me. I also do not think mentioning this jockstrap in other articles such as Russell Crowe or Blockbuster LLC is really warranted. This was a dumb gimmick and it should be covered in Wikipedia with that perspective. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The item appears in The Book of the Year 2018 and that's sustained coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep has received in-depth and persistent coverage in reliable sources. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  So  Why  11:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  So  Why  11:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cinderella Man, Blockbuster LLC and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver as appropriate. All of six months or so of "sustained" coverage, huh?  Meanwhile, I discovered just the other day that we have an article about someone who received coverage for decades and who died in February, yet we continue to portray this person as still living.  Factual accuracy takes a backseat to dumping low-hanging fruit and running, huh?  I have to wonder if these keep !voters really understand the damage that's being done by turning Wikipedia into a compendium of trending topics and a popularity contest, all the while attempting to con people into believing that such constitutes "the sum total of all human knowledge".  Then there's the over-reliance on news media sources versus any other type of reliable sources.  If the media really had their act together, I would have had sufficient enough advance notice of the day when the jockstrap appeared here in Fairbanks and therefore had a free-content photo for the article.  That doesn't happen when journalism these days consists largely of someone sitting in an office and talking to publicists instead of going out in the real world. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  05:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be more a criticism of what the media reports on and less of the article in question. However, saying that the media should focus on other stuff instead does not change the fact that they focused on this instead and we have to deal with the coverage as exists, not as we wish it existed. Also, merging a topic into three different articles defeats the point of merging since you would make the information harder to find than if it were on a single page. Regards So  Why  11:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and to put it another way, WP:Other stuff is shit? ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:Notability is not inherited - only joking Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The deletes sound a lot like IDONTLIKEIT. This item has taken on a course of its own, and a sustained one. From prop to auction item to part of a sketch on a tv show to a draw at a Blockbuster to back in another sketch reunited with Crowe, and onward... We don't know where it is now, and that information will likely become known, further expanding the article. Even now, there are dozens of sources that discuss it in detail. It overwhelmingly passes GNG. So where to put it? The item is mention-worthy in a Russell Crowe#Legacy section, a Last Week Tonight With John Oliver section, a Cinderella Man section, and perhaps even slightly a Blockbuster Video section. It cannot be merged into Cinderella Man because the content would make up a third of that article, unbalancing it. Plus, the item would feel overly attached to that article when it has mostly abandoned its connection to that movie. As a standalone, it is easily accessed by all four using a main template or other link. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since it looks like the damned thing is going to survive, at least rename it Russell Crowe's jockstrap from Cinderella Man. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if it does survive, that should be discussed after this AfD along with whether it should be added to List of film memorabilia and List of things that should be only handled with tongs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets GNG. Sure, this has potential to be merged, with multiple potential merge targets. Probably better at this point to discuss this option on the article talk page. North America1000 17:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, refs look fine. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The item has received coverage, but only as a result of its mention on Last Week Tonight. Looks like a case of WP:ONEEVENT to me, with a cursory mention of the jockstrap at Cinderella Man, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Russell Crowe. – PeeJay 08:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please check your WP:VAGUEWAVE since the guideline you cited is about the notability for people, not items. Also, your argument is incorrect, since WP:SIGCOV does not exclude items just because the coverage had a certain origin. That's like saying " has received coverage, but only as a result of playing for ". Regards So  Why  14:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It is only notable because of one television program - it would not and will not gain coverage if not for a recurring gag in a comedy show. -- Whats new?(talk) 09:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand "delete or merge". Do you think the content should be preserved (somewhere) or removed completely? It can't be both logically. Also, could you point out the policy or guideline that requires such a merger? After all, plenty of other stuff exists that has its own article despite being only notable because of one television program. And this item has gained coverage outside the television show, e.g. and . Regards  So  Why  10:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion is it should not be a standalone article, I'm comfortable with either delete or merge. Notability is my greatest issue here, and the "coverage outside the television show" you refer to is only coverage based on the TV show stunt. It holds no notability without the TV program and there is no extensive coverage of the item before it was featured on LWT (including when it was part of a film) and is no coverage that doesn't reference LWT in it. It is not notable enough for its own article in my judgement -- Whats new?(talk) 22:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What you are comfortable with shouldn't be the question. But you have not yet answered mine: Either the item is sufficiently notable to be mentioned somewhere, then it shouldn't be deleted. Or it's not, then it shouldn't be merged. It can't be both.As for the other part, I still see no policy or guideline whereby this disqualifies an item from having its own article. While WP:OSE does caution us not to cite other articles as a reason why a subject is notable, it also says that standalone articles about certain subjects can be decided on whether other such subjects have standalone articles. Anna mentioned Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption as an example of another "stunt" by LWT that has been kept by a strong consensus at AFD. Neither having coverage before being featured on LWT nor having coverage that does not reference LWT is a requirement for a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE.On a side note, here are some sources that explicitly mention the jockstrap but not John Oliver or LWT (most of them also from before it appeared on LWT):        Regards  So  Why  10:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge this important instance of a clever publicity stunt / marketing strategy to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. &mdash; 🍣  SashiRolls t ·  c 22:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, there is no consensus of where to merge it to. Plus, even if it is a "clever publicity stunt / marketing strategy", that is irrelevant. Notability is notability. Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption is notable, and that is not just otherstuffexisting. That deserves an article, as does this, based on notability independent of any motivation of Oliver. This item was covered well in media, covered Crowe well in Cinderella Man, was responsible for a koala chlamydia ward, was a big deal in Alaska, and part of two sketches with big celebs in the show, and, its journey is not over. All of this is supported by literally dozens of media stories discussing it in detail. It is notable and deserves a standalone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But none of the coverage is independent of the television show. It has no notability independent of the show. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you talking about WP:SIGCOV? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The final point of the WP:GNG is perhaps most relevant if you like: "...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article..." -- Whats new?(talk) 01:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I'm still confused. What does that have to do with your sentence starting "But none of the coverage is...". And again, what does that sentence mean? What policy or guideline does it refer to? You did not answer that. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As the GNG says, significant coverage does not guarantee the subject merits its own article. The existance of sources alone is not enough, and as I and others have observed, this item doesn't have its own coverage without being linked to LWT. Its own article gives undue weight to a recurring sketch in my opinion -- Whats new?(talk) 02:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that still does not make sense to me. And what does it matter if it is only linked to LWT, (which it is not, by the way)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Anna; sorry, long day. Without John Oliver / LWT it fails WP:ONEEVENT.  Because of LWT and their communications department it probably does not fail that WikiRule, because the meme got new life breathed into it whenever coverage began to flag.  Serious investigation would need to be conducted to determine whether or not a better title would in fact be John Oliver's former jockstrap, because reasons. For instance, Minassian Media, Inc. (founded by former Comedy Central employees) emphasized in their WMF-commissioned report on en.wp's future marketing in September 2016: it's time for a '"post-election gag about getting "back to facts now."' So whose jockstrap is it?  Shouldn't this be settled before we name the page, lest we be accused of "spreading fake news"?(§).  Knowing there's a DYK lined up leads me to believe that, next, J. Oliver will be pointing out that he made the en.WP front page, which might get people digging into why the former Comedy Central Clinton Foundation CCO was writing the WMF's communications strategy audit and training their staff during the 2016 election. So, yeah, maybe I just don't like it.  Maybe if we boiled it?  &mdash; 🍣  SashiRolls t ·  c 20:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. To be honest, I don't like it either. But, I do think it merits an article because of the massive coverage and that it went beyond LWT when it influenced Blockbuster and koalas with chlamydia, poor dears. You are now the second person to suggest boiling it. (I'm sure the auction house boiled it for a few hours following a directive from their insurance company.)  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that ONEEVENT only applies to people, not items, notwithstanding, did you notice the sources I mentioned above? The jockstrap was extensively covered in RS, including The Times, Bloomberg, Men's Health, The Daily Edge and others, before it first appeared on Oliver's show. Afaict, coverage began in March 2018 (e.g. on the AV Club) and intensified in the days around the sale. So it's not even ONEEVENT if one accepts that ONEEVENT could apply here at all. Regards So  Why  08:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm updating my !vote to: Do what you want. A good argument has been made above to merge this page to LWT advertising / marketing strategy.  It could also be an introductory paragraph to an article about the koala chlamydia epidemic.  I would suggest a DYK more along the lines of "DYK that the koala chlamydia ward of the Australian zoo was paid for through the purchase of a jock strap?"  (seems a bit more useful than just being shocked by the price it fetched.  But like I said, DWYW.   This reminds me a lot of the AfD about Donald Trump's hair of course...&mdash; 🍣  SashiRolls t ·  c 10:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sensationalist tat, that belongs more to a tabloid than a serious encyclopaedia. His marketing manager must be laughing all the way to the bank. Bermicourt (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to point out a policy or guideline to support your !vote? None of the notability guidelines I know about contain rules that "sensationalist tat is always non-notable". Regards So  Why  09:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, care to provide something other than IDONTLIKEIT? As you know, IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid and disregarded. If you really want it deleted, you need to cite guidelines or policies. The Keeps have done plenty of that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep My variant of the Pokémon test is the Trap Adventure 2 test. This jockstrap is far more notable than that, so deletion makes no sense. - Alexis Jazz 00:41, 29 November 2018 (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.