Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy


 * 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. — Caknuck 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I dont know why this article was never nominated before, maybe people were just caught up in all the hype.Anyway, the event is of no historic sighnifigance, just another case of a celebrity doing something "bad".This is just like the Mel Gibson DUI incident article that was nominated, but people chose not to delete, despite its lack of notability. Rodrigue 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, this even had a significant impact on censorship in the US broadcasting industry. It is much more important than many other articles on this website, such as List of most valuable comic books. 65.94.115.119 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Ok, I don't know why you brought up that completely unrelated, completly different article and compared it to this one.I dont know if you intended some kind of pun, but regardless of what "effect" it had on censorship, that is purly speculation and just because they slapped a big fine on the people who broadcasted the event does not mean it had a big "impact" on censorship in the US broadcasting. Rodrigue 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It was fairly notable - I mean the huge amount of press that it got was certainley a factor in its notability. Also, I noticed that it actually passes every criteria listed at WP:Notable. You know that your argument isn't that great when you say, this article is like ..., which was nominated for deletion but chosen to be kept. daniel  folsom  23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment What I was implying was it was another article created just because of over-hype, and people refused to recognize that and didn't it.The Mell Gibson did not have kind of "effect" on anything except creating hype,so if it was notable enough, than there could have been one on the Michael Richards incident, the time Britney Spears shaved her head and the Death of Anna Nicole Smith, the latter of which was created and I nominated it for deletion and people smartened up. Rodrigue 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this incident caused a change in the way live television is handled and programmed in the United States. Even years after this happened, the effects are still being felt. It is notable. Pgrote 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I suppose an article dealing with why this non-incident kicked up the fuss that it did might be interesting, but so what? BTLizard 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable is a much lower bar than "historically significant". --EMS | Talk 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:NOTE. Jay  &dagger;  Litman  13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep', strongly. Any TV incident that leads to action by the U.S. congress would appear to be notable enough to pass. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Can anyone give me one example where rules or regulations where changed or reviewed because of this thing?,Because just punishing the network involved in the incident has no long term effect on anything, Superbowls were the same before and after this incident, nothing changed. Rodrigue 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per wiki guidelines, notability is not lost over time. Tarc 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep we don't delete articles just because we deem the topic wasn't worthy of the media coverage it got. That would be bias, soapboxing, etc. --W.marsh 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment But the point is it got so much media coverage when it was really just nothing.There are many cases of celebrities doing something contraversial, like I states above.The only thing that sets this event apart is that the Superbowl is one of the most watched thing on television, so alot of people knew about it ehich made it seem like a big deal.

To prove my point, here is a quot from the article:In Canada, where the show was broadcast by Global, the incident passed largely without controversy:In Canada, where the show was broadcast by Global, the incident passed largely without controversy: "only about 50 Canadians complained about the incident to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). CBSC received roughly twice as many complaints about other aspects of the Super Bowl broadcast, including music and advertising issues".

That is compared to the hundreds of thousands of americans who complained about it in the states, like the article says.But because football is substnatually less popular in Canada, less people were aware or cared about the incident, and most likely heard it from american media.

And before you say it was an issue of population, if two hundred thousand people complained in the Us, then atleast more than ten thousand would have complained if football was as popular in Canada, but it was not a big deal Rodrigue 15:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter why it got media coverage, the fact is that it did get the coverage. There's no policy that says we need to delete something because Wikipedia editors don't think CNN should have covered that topic. --W.marsh 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not about how many people know about it, it is about the historical or cultural sighnifigance of the article.If the event had made some kind of effect on later Superbowls, then it would have been important.

For example,the article on the death of Anna Nicole Smith was nominated, by me, and then deleted because even though many people knew about it, mainly americans, the death was of no historical sifgnifigance.But there is an article on the Death of Adolf Hitler and the Execution of saddam hussein.

Both of those people were very well known world wide and there death had a sighnificant impact on the world, not just the country where they were from because of the media. Rodrigue 16:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merger isn't deletion. And there's no policy that defines notability as "historical or cultural sighnifigance". --W.marsh 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As dumb as it was, it was a major media event, which (as I recall) led to tightening broadcast regulations and other real-world effects. Not your average naughty-celeb tabloid story, folks. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I think I would like you specify on those so called tightening broadcast regulations and "real-world effects", because otherwise this debate is only about one thing, whether or not an event thats otherwise unnotable is important enough simply because it had a mass audience and media coverage.But like I said before, it was only really talked about in the country of origin where Football was the most watched annual sporting event.Not talked about nearly as much in Canada or Europe where the event is not as much viewed.

If the event was a big deal, then those other places would have talked about it just as much even though they weren't in the same area.Can anyone specify exactly what effects it had on television regulations or anything? Rodrigue 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? It's all in the article, especially the initial section and the "aftermath" section.  You did read the article before nominating it for deletion, right? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may say so, it is flawed logic to reason that something lacking notability outside the U.S. therefore lacks notability altogether. By that logic, anything that happened in Canada that Americans never heard of (and believe me, that's a long list) would also be deemed non-notable. In fact, by that logic, the only things that would be considered notable would be things that had a global effect, which is clearly wrong. I think the nominator is making judgments about the importance of this controversy, as opposed to its notability. Just because an event is perceived as being ridiculous or blown out of proportion does not make it non-notable. A good chunk of the U.S. considers Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky to be "no big deal," but that's clearly a notable event. Besides, add to that the fact that this controversy led directly to a tightening of FCC regulations and increased censorship in the U.S. and we've got plenty of notability. Seriously, folks, this one's a no-brainer. This ought to be speedily kept. --Hnsampat 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is well within the established criteria for notability.--Hnsampat 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a notable event in TV history, perhaps primarily due to the ensuing outrage, etc. It is worth keeping.Isaac Crumm 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per its coverage and effects as noted by nearly every keep vote above. hateless 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I'll probably never have enough interest to actually read it, it is notable even if the level of detail here is a little trivial. '  Tayquan' hollaMy work 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and the nominator is advised to stop wikilawyering. Notable in the United States only is, well, notable enough. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability does not magically disappear, don't be ridiculous.  Burntsauce 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all, pretty much. Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would be hard to find anyone in the US who hasn't heard of this with the media attention it garnered. Carlossuarez46 06:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The main reason to keep this is that it had lasting effects well beyond the incident itself. In light of that the comparison in the nomination is ridiculous. MartinDK 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment But that is what I keep asking for, what were the so called "lasting affects" that the event had, can anyone name some rules or regulations or something specifically that was directly affected by this event, because I don't think there were any.

And my argument about this being very unimportant still counts.If this kind of thing happened somewhere else in the world, which I'm sure must have, Im sure few outside that area would ever hear about it.But again, because of the shear size of the US, and the viewership of the Superbowl meant the event got something when it was really nothing.Even in Canada, a country that is right beside the US and is very comparible in nature, like the article said: "the incident passed largely without controversy: only about 50 Canadians complained about the incident to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). CBSC received roughly twice as many complaints about other aspects of the Super Bowl broadcast, including music and advertising issues".

But you know I have to say that I'm sure almost if not all the people who voted for keep are from the US, like most people in Wikipedia.Wikipedia is supposed to be a global encyclopedia, that is why an event that just makes news in just one country is not noteworthy.But I supposed the fact that wikipedia is mainly comprised of americans does not help that situation. Rodrigue 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Remark "But again, because of the shear [sic] size of the US and the viewership of the Superbowl [sic] meant the event got something when it was really nothing." See? You're confusing notability with importance. Like I said before, just because an event is ridiculous doesn't mean it isn't notable. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, but every single topic does not have to have global appeal (even though each article does need to reflect a worldview). Events occur that are notable in one country but are completely meaningless in another. Events do not have to be notable everywhere to be notable. The same holds true for other topics. I mean, who outside the U.S. would care who the senior U.S. Senator from Alaska is? That doesn't diminish Ted Steven's notability, though. (And more people know about this controversy than know who Ted Stevens is, believe it or not.) You keep looking for evidence that this event has historical significance. Something doesn't have to be historically significant to be notable. Sanjaya from American Idol is not historically significant either (and he became a star when many people felt he was worthless). Nonetheless, you cannot make any kind of reasonable case that he is not notable. Bottom line: the halftime controversy is not necessarily historically significant, but it is notable. --Hnsampat 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep per EMS Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 15:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, highly notable. Everyking 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Notability has a fuzzy but specific meaning in WP policy, it is not a question of whether I think the topic should be notable.  Notability in the WP sense is trivially demonstrated.  --Joe Decker 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting Wikipedia guidelines "Notable is defined as 'worthy of being note' or 'attracting notice'; it is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'" (emphasis added). "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable" (emphasis added). So, it doesn't have to be important or historically significant to be notable. This article ought to be speedily kept. --Hnsampat 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. What the fuck, is this supposed to be a joke?  Not funny... RFerreira 05:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As someone who was trying to look up information about it, this certainly seems like something Wikipedia should have, especially if it fits notability reqs. Evan7257 07:46, 7 May 2007 (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.