Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (again)


 * 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.  Shanel § 23:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Juggernaut Bitch


Delete Regardless of the previous AFD. This is not encyclopedic (be sure to check the link for the video). Also, being a popular video for a while doesn't merit inclusion (will anyone remember it 1 year from now? 5 years? -- (  drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 05:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, merge with Internet phenomenonand redirect as someone proposed. -- ( drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete plain and simply, doesn't meet the verafiability policy and hence is original research. —porges(talk) 05:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete every article on wikipedia must meet certain requirements, these include verifiablity, and notability. Just because this is on google video does not make it noteworthy.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article requires revision (particularly in the plot summary section) but the video deserves a page. Doctofunk 05:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  The above user had less than 15 edits prior the comment, and nearly all of them from past week.
 * why does it deserve a page? that's the core of the issue. -- ( drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For the same reasons that were discussed the first time this came up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Juggernaut_Bitch ; as for the misleading comment about my number of edits, I've been using wikipedia for almost a year and often making minor edits without signing in. But thanks for the ad hominem attack.  Doctofunk 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * drini probably pointed out the low number of edits made by your present account because it indicates that you are a new member of the community and, as such, it is only fair to assume that you are still learning about Wikipedia policy. This kind of note is standard practice on AfD. Melchoir 01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Low to no verifiability. Perfect fodder for any shock journalist trying to discredit Wikipedia. Appears to contain nearly a complete transcript of the video (oh thats been recently removed, no doubt leading to the above comment on the plot summary section). Furthermore, our link to the video itself (which is a clear copyright infringement) is contributory infringement, but remove the link and the article is totally unverifiable. --Gmaxwell 05:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per others.--Sean Black (talk?) 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There are a million videos on google video, few of which are notable in any way. There is too much webcartooncruft out there. Are we to make a page for everyone? I don't think so. Sasquatch t|c 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; being a somewhat popular amateur animation does not make it notable. The fact that it is on Google Video is meaningless, since they accept nearly anything that is legal and appropriate; see the Google Video upload page. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone. This article doesn't even claim that its subject is notable. No verification by reliable sources. Melchoir 05:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per everyone. We don't need articles about non-notable copyvios.  --Hyperbole 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per many others, this is extremely non-notable. --Deville (Talk) 06:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I would say the fact of this eing on Google Video makes it less notable not more. Nothing to see here, move along please... Just zis Guy you know? 07:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Wikipedia should only consist of material that can be verified from some outside source, however obscure -- no outside source, no article. We should never consider how informative, well-written or interesting the content of any page is on its own terms.  That is utterly immaterial in light of THE RULES.  We should only stick to the narrowest possible interpretation of the THE RULES in all circumstances, without any exceptions for any reason whatsoever.  All articles should be composed in the dryest, most soulless manner so that we can all pretend that they are written in a way that offers no point of view, even though all history has shown us that such is humanly impossible.  We must ignore the examples of such utter trash as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and dozens like it, which included and continue to include POV from its writers and articles on obscure subjects, since we know that those encyclopedias never achieved any serious critical or popular recognition or excellence.  Indeed, we must also be sure to insult and dismiss the value in any articles with which we personally disagree or dislike, because that helps wikipedia's reputation for lack of POV among its writers.  Also, we should be especially sure to find reasons in the THE RULES to delete anything that's popular or identifiable with youth culture, political and economic conservatives or moderates, and/or anybody or anything not susceptible to being included among those subjects we would approve for our own intellectual consumption.  Above all, we must NEVER, EVER allow anything into wikipedia that would not exist in a regular encyclopedia, as that would put wikipedia in danger of turning into something unique and distinct, which, as good Marxists like us know, is evil and selfish.  We MUST DELETE this article and all others like it before young, impressionable minds begin to disregard THE RULES!!!! RiseAbove 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Support —porges(talk) 07:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse User:RiseAbove -- Simon Cursitor


 * Keep: I know a lot of people who have heard of this, and have come to Wikipedia looking for info on it. Other people must be looking for info on it as well, because this page ranks pretty high on the Google search rankings. Also, I was reading the requirements for notability, and on the proposal for Internet Memes it said there is currently no consensus for what consititutes a notable meme. With that in mind, in my opinion, I don't feel notability should be a factor in this debate. StarNeptune 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  The above user has less than 50 edits.

and
 * Someone's always going to say notability is invalid, so I repeat: No verification by reliable sources. Verifiability is not a proposed guideline; it is bedrock policy, and it is not satisfied by someone claiming to know "a lot of people". Melchoir 08:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If this can stay (which has nothing in the way of verification besides a link to the video), then this should, too. StarNeptune 08:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. More to the point, the inclusion of one allegedly-yet-unverifiably popular internet video on Wikipedia does not open the door to every other video for which someone pops up and says "yeah, my mates and I have heard of it". You can add all the footnotes you want, but unless you can find a reliable source to cite, this article is just as worthless to us as the other. Melchoir 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep  per advocates of guerilla ghetto over-dubbing: I find it interesting and funny. I think that counts. stylistic choices were made. certain characters or universes were used at discretion of artists. hence, art. hence, you delete it equals you'r wack. more seriously- dry & soulless- did that for a while. it was fun. I'm feelin a skotch more soul in 'pedia in general starting with this article. dryness is cool, but perhaps not as a rule. perhaps not as an argument to delete this. and riseabove- minds be young. the rules are cool. but this article?
 * Also, we should be especially sure to find reasons in the THE RULES to delete anything that's popular or identifiable with youth culture, political and economic conservatives or moderates, and/or anybody or anything not susceptible to being included among those subjects we would approve for our own intellectual consumption.


 * I don;t get it. and why youth culture? Ka- zizzl Mc 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * RiseAbove was the page creator and is being sarcastic. Melchoir 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * k. hehe. I did think for a sec that he had to be kidding.


 * I change my vote to Strong "Meh" (regular "Meh" is even more indifferent than neutral). I viewed the video. I added to the article for the record. I realized even if it's funny and well done, I don't care terribly if it has an article here. It's on the net. it's not going anywhere. I can tell my friends to check it out. however, to those who feel this article is valuable/worth saving: I would recommend (and wikipedians don't seem to EVER do this) find or create another wiki for the kind of content that you would like to see! If you really want this type of content to live there's probly a wiki for it somwhere. there's gotta be a compendium of internet phenomena somwhere. Ka- zizzl Mc 04:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ENC. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for the juvenile pranks of adolescents (unless they're really, really funny, or really, really notable/newsworthy). And if this is really symbolic of "youth culture", come back child labour, all is forgiven. -- GWO
 * Delete per Sasquatch. Metamagician3000 12:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for many of the reasons above. PJM 12:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Smacks of WP:NFT but there is no standard for movie notability. Mystache 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Internet phenomenon, or, if that fails, just delete. — Cuivi é  nen  , Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 15:01 UTC 
 * Delete per nom. Maybe we'll get better luck this time.  RGTraynor 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain the timing of this proposal, given that there was active discussion on the talk page about overhauling the article? Why not wait until the dicussion is complete before proposing deletion? Doctofunk 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Without a source in sight, no amount of overhauling an article can save it. The AfD process does not target articles that need cleanup; it targets articles that are beyond cleanup. Melchoir 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why didn't this come up the first time deletion was proposed? Doctofunk 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because no one asked? Melchoir 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable. --Ter e nce Ong 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete... and this is coming from someone who was brought to tears laughing while watching it. Funny as hell, but it's just not verifiable by outside sources. It would make a good addition to an article about this trend in general, as I'm sure there are some sources for the general concept of things like this, Kung Faux, etc.  Wikipedia doesn't hate youth culture.  It just depends on verifiability. &mdash; AKADriver  &#x260E;  18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.--Nilfanion 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 'Heavily mirrored' is not the same thing as 'notable'.--InShaneee 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep* Definitely keep this article. It helped me in more ways than one in receiving an A+ on my in class presentation concerning internet phenemona for my Anthropology 247 class. This encylopedia is for exchanging information, and regardless of the content of the article it does provide information for people interested in the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.146.77 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  Above user had only 5 previous edits -- (  drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedias are not for exchanging information; you must be thinking of a blog. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; we summarize information that has already been published by reliable and reputable sources. What is so hard about this concept? Melchoir 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifibility is not an issue with this article. It's become a notability issue, and instead of hashing out a consensus keep on the talk page, a user has decided "No, I'm just going to AfD again to get my desired result." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is always an issue. This is an encyclopedia, not a think tank. No reliable sources = no article. Melchoir 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is always an issue, just not with this article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources? Melchoir 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, possible venue shopping and WP:POINT issue. This belongs at WP:DRV if anywhere at all.  The last AfD was a consensus keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted" Melchoir 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, DRV is there for contested AfD's. According to the opening paragraph "It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora."  This is a contested AfD result, and bringing it back here constitutes forum shopping to get a desired result, IMO.  On another note, this type of article is EXACTLY why we need a meme-specific guideline. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, DRV includes reviews of recent AfDs, but this is a new one, opened three weeks later, which is an eternity in the lifetime of a meme. Articles get renominated like this all the time, and often the result changes if only because more people are watching. And it is hardly forum shopping to return to the same forum! Melchoir 01:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You apparently don't understand the lifespan of notable internet memes. And most certainly, a less than 3 week lapse between AfDs and not bothering with the talk page or DRV suggests otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're the expert, then, how long should we wait? And why should anyone bother with the talk page of a doomed article? All I'd be able to say is Attention: find some sources in the next month or your work will be in vain. I think not verified on the article makes a better statement. Melchoir 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article's only "doomed" because people would rather keep nominating it to get a desired result than actually work on the article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. What is so special about this article that gives it an exemption from verifiability. How can anything ignore that rule?--86.139.225.84 02:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  The above IP had only three previous edits


 * Strong Keep--I am unclear as to how this article is unverifiable. The question of "legitimate" verification requires resources that are not available to Internet phenomenon (a realm in which, one must be reminded, Wikipedia itself belongs).  Further the very purpose--I believe--of Wikipedia is to allow verification by way of open source and access to information that is not readily available elsewhere (let us be reminded of articles like "Skateboard Tricks", and "turntabilism") and this certainly includes Internet media and other esoterica.  If the issue is that the article belongs under a larger "tree"--as part of "internet phenomenon" as suggested above--than it is simply a question of information taxonomy.  If there is a question of content (i.e. revision) than this is not cause for deletion it is a request for clarity.  One is immediately struck with the strangeness of deleting an article that provides information about an object that is not only a member of the same media as Wikipedia but is created in its very same spirit.  And as a final note on verification, one merely must do the most basic of web searches and find an easy and quick link to the video and from there scrutinize the article in view of its source. In terms of that which is forgettable (the issue of timeliness) much of what is available on Wikipedia that relates in any way to pop culture will be lost--some in quicker breaths than others--but this does not, nor should it, preclude inclusion. The very possibility that it may be forgotten is the very reason to include an article: We are the archivists of the Internet, and without cataloguing that which occurs--monumental or not--we may lose or forget what the internet is--or is meant to be--in addition to its waves and ripples, its own peculiar movements.  The question of whether the thing is worthy of an article is foolish, this is an open source popularly edited source of information, this is thankfully not scrutinized by the academy (think of what would be lost on Wikipedia if it were, or what we could easily lose by continuing this line of argument).  Further articles such as "Juggernaut Bitch" are meant for the specific searcher, such as the individual above who was researching "internet phenomenon".  The inclusion of such articles keeps Wikipedia democratic, and though edited popularly, not populist.  As to the idea that Wikipedia is not an exchange of information, this is fallacious.  Wikipedia, being that it is made up of a series of editable documents, is nothing but an exchange of information that--depending upon the users' level of interest in participation--can either be a one or two way methodology of exchange.  The very idea that the article is commonly accessed through google seems enough for it to stay afloat, but those opposed to its existence are more than welcome to edit it.--RevNet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.145.160 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 April 2006  (UTC)
 *  The above IP had never edited before -- (  drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT many of those things. Melchoir 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * RevNet FTW! "Popular without being populist" is exactly what Wikipedia should strive for. RiseAbove 20:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, Malo.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article requires revision but the fact is that this video is a big enough internet phenomenon that it warrents an article. The original version on Youtube has something like a million unique hits. NightShade 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Youtube claims it's popular, ergo Wikipedia must make stuff up about it? Melchoir 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Youtube has claimed no popularity for the video. Youtube has registered it. If you take issue with the veracity of specific content on the page, this is not an excuse to nominate it for deletion. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I appreciate those of you on this page who are voting Keep, you do yourselves an intellectual honor. However, I don't think there are enough of us to compete with the sheer weight of the doctrinaire Wikipedia Inquisition that's watching to make sure there aren't any rules violations. They put up this new AfD about a week after the last AfD was consensus keep. If this one is keep, they'll put up another one in a few days. And again, and again. There's nothing stopping them from doing it as many times as it takes to get the page deleted. It's not a question of the rules, or decorum, or wikipedia's reputation, it's only about a certain, sad group of martinets which seeks to discredit anything which it does not approve of. So, rather than get into arguments with those same martinets, I advise you to save your effort. As Schopenhauer said: "The ability to think from one's own resources is the prerogative of the few. The rest are guided by authority and example." That's a fact of human existence that we simply cannot change, no matter how rational, clever or outright true our arguments are. And yes, for those haters voting delete, I think The Juggernaut Bitch is brilliant AND I just quoted Schopenhauer. Wrap your ivory tower minds around that -- that is, if you even know who Schopenhauer is. If I ever meet any of you in real life, I will be sure to hit you with your own pimp. Peace. RiseAbove 08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment that may be, but it doesn't meet the verfiability policy, and as it stands is a blatant example of original research. —porg es (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources —WP:OR


 * Strong Keep BTW, just in case anyone actually thought I was being serious with my "Delete" comment above.RiseAbove 20:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please it is very notable as a video Yuckfoo 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  A large percentage of above account edits belong to AFD space -- (  drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep The creed of summarizing that which has been previously published by reliable and reputable sources is a fair guideline for an enyclopedia, in general, to follow. The obstinate adherence to it, in open hostility towards common sense and the will to inform, is the act of an obsessive compulsive and a philistine. Unfortunately for the authoritarians behind this grand inquisition, knowledge is an unruly beast and the scope of notable sociological phenomena far exceeds what spills down into the neat compartments of academic journals and "reputable" (whoever's presuming to define this dubious term for the rest of us) sources. As has been pointed out above, the nature of internet memes prevents their notability being "verified", as defined by the martinets, in the same easy manner as more traditional subjects. Of course, all of the information on this page is verifiable by watching the video, which the million or so people who have viewed it (as recorded by google and youtube statistics) will be happy to attest to. But to a certain kind of blinder-sporting absolutist, the very idea of accepting such wildly unruly data as evidence is anathema. Unfortunately, these people are often in a position to make the rest of us suffer. Is it the mission of an encyclopedia to hold fast to an arbitrary rule of content as a public exercise in intractibilty? Or is it the mission of an enyclopedia to educate, enlighten, and disseminate? Are we to sacrifice valuable data which a mass of people derive use and benefit from, because of the inability of a few to adapt to a world where information does not always make itself known through state approved channels? To those who support deleting this page because of its alleged "unverifiability": the forest you're looking for is over there, right behind those trees. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 *  The above user has only five edits previous to this discussion -- (  drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The signature is falsified. —porg es (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)::  The above IP had never edited before ::I accidentally signed my name with a capitalized M instead of lowercase. I have corrected this, and clicking on my name, you will find I have been a member of wikipedia since last year. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC) :::Thanks for fixing that :) If you always sign with four tildes you shouldn't have this problem in future. —porg es (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on above debate: This is not the place to debate policy. If you would like to see WP:V and WP:OR changed or rewritten, please do it somewhere else. As it stands, this article directly violates (two-thirds of) what is accepted content policy on Wikipedia. —porg es (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. —WP:V
 * the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources —WP:OR
 * Edit: someone notified me I sounded a bit organizationalistik here :) I didn't mean to, what I meant is that several of the posts here are irrelevant because what they're arguing isn't really whether or not to keep a page, but whether some of the core policies need to be rewritten. —porg es (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * -Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is intended as a repository of all subjects of any notability.
 * -By the guidlines you so literally cite, which apparently decline to recognize tracking and usage statistics as a valid source, *no* internet memes may qualify for submission to wikipedia.
 * -Internet memes can achieve, and have achieved, notability.
 * So we have a problem. And we have two choices: we can censor information so that Wikipedia delineates only that body of knowledge fortunate enough to have been reproduced through channels which a few self-appointed arbiters of knowledge artifically designate as "acceptable". OR: We can choose not to carve large chunks out of the social and historical record for irrational and bureaucratic purposes, and admit that RULES are an imperfect contrivance, subject to constant scrutiny, revision, and exception, and that they *do not apply* to all things at all times. Are you saying you are unwilling to allow basic common sense, practicality, efficacy, and the evolution of informational transmission, to supercede THE RULES on an individual, merited basis, without another RULE explicitly stating that this may be done? If this is so, then I have to ask, and I ask this non-rhetorically and in all sincerity: of what benefit are you? Spotlessmind 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is where we have a problem; namely, that there are no agreed guidelines on how much of an internet presence a 'meme' needs before it warrants its own article. At the moment, everything seems to be getting funnelled into internet memes, which is hardly an ideal situation. But here I am, crossing the boundaries of what I've said above. This isn't the place for this discussion. It is a place where the outcome of such discussion, as and when it takes place, is required. I do think you're getting a bit hyperbolic here, excluding (what is an admittedly minor manifestation of) this internet meme from Wikipedia at the present time is not "carv[ing] large chunks out of the social and historical record". —porg es (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not hyperbole, it's extrapolating to a logical extreme. The argument to me is not about this page, specifically, but what this page represents, and the idea that there are now, and will continue to be even more, subjects of note on the internet that must and can be verified differently from Plato's Republic or the Battle of Antioch. If this page is impermissible, then there are a LARGE number of Wiki pages that must also be so. Spotlessmind 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No kidding. Spotlessmind, I see you're new here. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not everything you want it to be. We are not in the business of describing previously undocumented things for posterity; you can start your own wiki for that. Or you can try Wikinfo, or Everything2, or h2g2, or Uncyclopedia; these sites do not share Wikipedia's content policies. Melchoir 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Melchoir, I see you confer length of association with unwarranted moral authority. Please keep in mind that if I were interested in turning Wikipedia into everything I want it to be, I would be campaigning for the comprehensive inclusion of a porn star database with extensive photo and screen capture galleries. If you are interested in removing from Wikipedia things of an undocumented nature, then I suggest and wholly support your finding such a thing. In the meantime, feel free to click on the link at the bottom of the article, where you will be directed to a page documenting the existence of one "Juggernaut, bitch!" video. Spotlessmind 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Moral authority? How ridiculous. I'm not saying the article is bad; I'm saying it doesn't belong here. As for the Google video page, I've seen it, and all it says is "The Juggernaut!!!". There is nothing that does or could support this or any encyclopedia article. Melchoir 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Melchior, you could simply Google "The Juggernaut Bitch." You will find that the results include not only numerous pages leading to the video, but also a listing for the wikipedia article itself at around number 5 or 6 on the list.  But yet, somehow this page is not notable enough to remain on wikipedia.  Spotlessmind is absolutely right.  And not just in the above posting, either. RiseAbove 08:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the first thing I did, and I didn't find any reliable sources; it appears no one else did either. Melchoir 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of those Google results are of either people on various forums and personal blogs (apparently neither format is criterion for notability and/or verification for an article on an internet meme...go figure.) quoting lines from the film, or mirrors of the film itself. If this film was not notable, I doubt it would have that many people quoting lines from it or hosting it on other servers for other people to see. The only things we have for verfication and reliable sources are the link to the MySpace account of co-creator Xavier Nazario (where he discusses the video, and where people who have seen the video posted how much they enjoyed it), and the video itself. Seriously, what more does an article of this nature need? It's an article on an internet meme, not an article on some groundbreaking scientific research project. StarNeptune 15:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, notability standards in all categories require nontrivial sources independent of the subject, and blogs and personal websites are never reliable. Neither of the links supports the original research going on in this article. Articles on all topics are held to the same standards; it would be ridiculous to lower the bar for memes just because you want more of them to have articles. Melchoir 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge summaries with X-men and Juggernaut or an article dedicated to derivative works of them.In1984 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep' If you're going to keep all the other articles about internet memes then this should be allowed to stay aswell XSpaceyx 15:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We delete alleged "memes" them all the time. Melchoir 21:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article seems a bit long, but I feel that this is certainly notable enough for wikipedia Ryanfantastic 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  The above user has less than 10 edits -- (  drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User's seventh edit. --InShaneee 16:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is popular, people like it. Plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.251.240.116 (talk • contribs)
 * AFD is not a voting. It's a debate. Being popular doesn't equate to encyclopedic. -- ( drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Strong Keep" Extremely popular internet phenomena, which is nonetheless a form of entertainment. All other forms of entertainment here are allowed legitimate background information and plot summaries; this is no exception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparkage (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  The above user had only three edits previous to this afd
 * Wikipedia is not an entertainment website. -- ( drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User's fourth edit. Melchoir 22:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

you guys are haters. people know how to check contribs. it's not that serious. if nonies show up & what they say isn't weighted, it isn't weighted. it's not like you have to bring it to everyone's attention every time. (approx my 1583rd right here) Ka- zizzl Mc 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's faster and easier to read the note than check contribs yourself, especially if you're a fellow newbie unaware of the tool. Melchoir 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I think the subject matter is worthy of inclusion due to it having the potential to be a popular internet fad, which are chronicled on this site. Beastdog75 03:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  Above user has less than 10 edits -- (  drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that AFD is not a vote. And having potential to be a fad is not an argument pro merit of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- ( drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * it's "not a vote"? Ka- zizzl Mc 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, see note at top. This is not a voting process t osee which gets more "votes" either keeps or deletes, which will decide what will be done with the articles. It's about arguments, and so far, arguments like "it's fun! it's popular! I like it!" are very weak building a case pro-keeping the article. -- ( drini's page   &#x260E;  ) 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 *  Above user has less than 20,000 edits -- Ka- zizzl  Mc 04:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * generally, clearly, number of votes and quality of arguments both matter, but in this case - you'r right, anons/extra fresh noobs' votes don't weigh so heavily, even if their arguments seem smart. Their overall good intentions at 'pedia are have not been demonstrated. Ka- zizzl Mc 04:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, all the significant aspects of the article are original research. No opposition to recreation when significance can be better established. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this is no Badger Badger Badger  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 06:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn until Marvel or Fox sues creators for copyvio -- Robocoder


 * 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.