Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whistle tip


 * 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.

Whistle tip
The result was keep.  (withdrawn by nominator) Thanks to DRosenbach for the clean-up. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not sure about the notability of this particular device... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only relevant sources I could find relate to the YouTube video mentioned as the only source in the article. (Okay, not every one, I found the patent application, but you get the idea.) --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, largely unreferenced. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Why are articles being proposed for deletion when they are hours old? Wikipedia can't be built in a day.  Give it some time.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is going to have to stay -- let's snowball this one.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 06:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rosenbach, how is it notable in your opinion? IceUnshattered (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I happened to come across it on the AfD page and had a few hours to combat one of the things I dislike about Wikipedia -- how soon articles are put up for deletion. The editors above presented argument for deletion based upon "an only source being a YouTube video," "not notable" and "largely unreferenced.  I would agree that the article as it had been created met all of those criteria for deletion -- but the article as it stands now does not.  Whistle tips were a 2002 fad that sparked a 2002-2003 legislative drive in an American state that resulted in it being banned by the state DMV.  Inasmuch as it is a recognized modification to automobiles (which nearly every family in America owns) and it sparked considerable controversy in a tremendous US city (San Francisco and environs) leading to local coverage (Oakland Tribune) that was not a minor, one time moment in the spotlight, but rather snowballed into state government involvement resulting in a state bill makes it notable.  State congresswomen don't nominate items for state law that are non-notable.  State laws do not regulate non-notable actions or entities.  Two or more automotive websites and network television do not cover non-notable events.  On top of this, this "Bubb Rubb" internet thing, while I'd say is not notable enough by itself, does have a part in this article, as did other viral videos, such as Numa Numa and the Pepsi-mentos video.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me, but we need cites. IceUnshattered (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the article, I've updated it with citations for all the information I have written about above.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

← Unless anyone has anything else to say, I will withdraw this AfD per cleanup mentioned above. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (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.