Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Ryder Cup photograph

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I wasn't too impressed with some of the arguments on either side but at this time I don't see a consensus to delete this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ryder Cup photograph[edit]

2010 Ryder Cup photograph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable internet meme. Famous for a day, but has no long-lasting significance. wjematherbigissue 16:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually, it is quite notable due to the rapidity of its spread (as well as its extent). In any event, establishing a permanent entry of a cultural event such as this (i.e. a new and significant internet meme), especially with the degree of press it has garnered, is hardly unjustified. Gaussgauss (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep I knew when I created this article that it would likely go to AfD. I understand the reasoning behind the deletion proposal. I agree somewhat that the notability of the photograph is borderline at best although it has definetly garnered widespread news coverage. Plenty of source material is available. I think it just meets the notability guideline, and the article has lots of potential. With further work, it can become an engaging, objective, an informative article on a unique cultural phenomenon.  Burningview  ✉ 02:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, have a look at similar internet meme articles with borderline notability such as 300-page iPhone bill  Burningview  ✉ 03:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced that a single amusing photograph, however much short-term attention it garners, is deserving of a Wikipedia article. The iphone bill meme does, at least, have some notability in the way it comments on a widespread issue with iphone billing. In any case, other stuff exists is not usually a strong argument. --KorruskiTalk 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Didn't even know about this until I just saw a feature about "cigar guy" on CNN international just a few minutes ago. I'm guessing notable enough for CNN, good enough for us. Shrumster (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Wikipedia places a much greater premium on lasting notability and avoiding 'light news' than most news sources, CNN included, do. --KorruskiTalk 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'light news' is WP:SENSATION:
"Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability."
This is not "tabloid journalism", "sensationalist" and "scandal mongering". If you are going to support deleting other editors work, at least quote a policy which backs up your personal opinion. Adamtheclown (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the story about this image is 'tabloid journalism', 'gossip' and 'frivolous', so WP:SENSATION does back up my opinion. Thanks though. --KorruskiTalk 08:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also agree that this article has lots of potential. I've first saw the story of Cigar Guy on yahoo news, then later on CNN, and finally I decided to look to wikipedia (like I always do) for additional information, and surely enough, here it is. Lets also not forget the connection this "historical" photo now has with a celebrity, Tiger Woods. mz (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that the internet spawns all kinds of crap, some of which makes the wider news media, however briefly. This is one such occasion. However there is nothing here to indicate why this meets WikiPedia's notability standards.
The photograph is the subject of the article and it is only in the news because of the 'cigar guy' thing, which will be long forgotten soon enough. wjematherbigissue 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you refrain from calling other editors contributions "crap". It is inflammatory and doesn't help civil discourse.
Daily Mail and MSNBC are not notable news oranizations? How many hundreds of news organizations would you need references for?
Again, please note that notability does not expire: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." WP:NTEMP Adamtheclown (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knock it off. Clearly I, and others your are similarly accusing, are not commenting on other editors, we are stating our thoughts on this kind of internet-related trivial nonsense. I also think you should definitely read the policies again. News stories (which this obviously is) absolutely do need ongoing coverage or evidence of long term impact. See (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT, and even WP:ONEEVENT). wjematherbigissue 08:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - must we really sully the article space with this kind of crap just because there was a slow news day out there somewhere?  Óðinn  ☭☆ᛟ  talk  21:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do know you are insulting editors contributions? Adamtheclown (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They made the choice to spend time on building an entirely unencyclopedic article out of their own free will.  Óðinn  ☭☆ᛟ  talk  01:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this picture is the very essence of the reason wikipedia was created. It is pointless and more famous than 99.9 percent of all the greatest works of art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.234.194 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep massive amounts of references for this article. WP:NTEMP Notability never expires, so if Cigar guy is notable today, just because time passes and he is not talked about later, doesn't mean he should not be on wikipedia. Adamtheclown (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable today, nor will he be tomorrow. He may be newsworthy on a quiet day, but that is a totally different thing. Same goes for the photograph (which is the subject of this article). wjematherbigissue 08:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just googled this after seeing it mentioned on a blog. But perhaps Cigar Man should be listed under List of Internet phenomena rather than a whole article about this photo. It is being mentioned in the British press , see Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph. Jezzerk (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now which is my normal opinion for brand new items that definitely have "temporary notability" in the common-English-language sense of the word but which may or may not survive the test of time. Give it 3 months minimum before sending it back to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That position has no basis in policy. wjematherbigissue 12:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has a good commonn sense basis in reality, however, and is the de facto result in many of these AfDs.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject is widely covered in UK, US, and global press, and with this breaking news the article can be improved with a confirmed identity for the mysterious Cigar Guy. Notability is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still not notable in the first place though. wjematherbigissue 12:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability policy is pretty clear on this: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The coverage has been significant, reliable, independent, and ongoing over a period of time, not merely "a day" as asserted in the nomination. Also, Notability is not temporary, to wit: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" so even if/when coverage eventually tapers off, that's not a factor here. - Dravecky (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is quite obviously a guideline not a policy, and the key word is presumed, i.e not guaranteed. Yes notability is not temporary, but this has not been notable at any time. Newsworthy apparently, but not notable. This has been nothing more than a news story about some internet nonsense. Therefore WP:NOTNEWS applies, and until it can be demonstrated that this has some long lasting impact or significance that will remain the case. Also, the Daily Mail is not an independent source. wjematherbigissue 14:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTEMP. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if he were called for a commercial about cigars or the like. His image sells ! Krenakarore (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if an image can be provided. A visual is absolutely essential for this article. Without one, the text is unaccompanied and thus incomplete. Haljackey (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is not available under any free license and would not qualify for fair use. Derivatives that have appeared elsewhere would similarly fall foul of the same laws. wjematherbigissue 07:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would anyone asserting WP:NTEMP please provide a rationale for why this passes WP:NOT and is even notable in the first place. wjematherbigissue 07:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Do you mean WP:NOTE? I've quoted the relevant text in my initial comment. It's clear you don't like the article but it's also clear that consensus and the notability guidelines lean strongly the other direction. - Dravecky (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Worth noting, for people who are asserting WP:NTEMP in favour of keeping this article, that WP:NTEMP also states 'Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.' I think this is a perfect example of where a topic garners a lot of news attention, including from respectable sources, because it is funny, but still fails to achieve notability. --KorruskiTalk 09:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Except, in this case, there is significant coverage that does provide critical analysis, including CBS News, Yahoo Sports, Daily Mail, and Know Your Meme among many others. - Dravecky (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, please explain how this passes WP:NOT (yes, that is what I meant), specifically WP:INDISCRIMINATE. wjematherbigissue 17:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article at hand is not a plot-only description of a fictional work, not a lyrics database, not an excessive listing of statistics, not simply "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" or breaking news, not a who's who, and not an FAQ. Perhaps you could elaborate on how you think it does run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All of your statements so far fall more closely under WP:ITBOTHERSME. - Dravecky (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It concerns me that you seem to have read the policy (WP:NOT), and chosen to select everything that does not apply. This statement from the policy however does apply: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". This is nothing more than a short-lived light-hearted news story about an unremarkable internet occurrence. Again, please let us know why this goes beyond that? wjematherbigissue 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (de-indent) You fired a shotgun blast and asked me to track the pellets—so I did. I listed all six of the points at WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this article does not fall afoul of any of them. The coverage goes beyond the "routine news reporting" outlined in that clause as it's sustained coverage of not merely the publication of the photo but of reaction to the photo itself, the spread of an altered version of the photo and elements thereof as an internet meme, and further coverage of the meme itself. Simply repeating your belief that the article violates policy does not make it so, no matter how many times you post it on this page. - Dravecky (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You did no such thing. You initially asserted that notability is not temporary, without demonstrating notability. I asked you to demonstrate why it passes policy and you sidestepped the issue. Now you have finally decided to answer the question, I will respond.
        The photograph itself is absolutely not notable since all the coverage is of the meme and mention of the original photo is incidental. Coverage of the meme has been widespread but it lacks depth and does not go beyond routine, with the Daily Mail fuelling the ongoing stories because it was their photographer who took the original (free advertising). What we need to see is coverage that indicates why this meme is any more special than the last, or the one before that. As someone above said, as it stands an entry in a list of internet stuff will more than suffice. wjematherbigissue 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The standard is notability, not "more special", but thank you for clarifying your view. - Dravecky (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Stop playing with words. As you well know, stuff like this needs something special to make it notable and being in the news for a few days just doesn't do it. Show us the evidence that makes this notable. wjematherbigissue 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this photo is notable right now, which is seriously debatable given a non-lawyerish and more commonsense view of what being notable actually means, the GNG is a presumption, and in this case, the coverage does not outweigh the obvious caveat to that - that this is an article whose sole claim to lasting notability and significance is temporary news coverage. And the coverage of this meme is not exceptional or significant for the general topic of internet memes that make the news, and per NOT#INFO aswell as NOT#NEWS, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to document every meme that simply makes the mainstream news, no matter how international that is. As somebody above said, there is no critical or in depth coverage here, it is all just basic news reporting, and in many of these, the whole follow up reporting to find out who the person is is perfectly normal and expected, for news reporting. But Wikipedia articles use different values than news outlets for determining what is and isn't worthy of note. There is also the BLP factor, given the actual bloke is a very reluctant celebrity it seems, and would not relish the unwarranted coverage an article on Wikipedia would bring for all time, on the basis of brief news exposure. If further coverage down the line proves this is not just one of many such run of the mill flash in the pan internet meme news stories that occur several times a year, and this image/meme is actually proven by RS to have been remembered as significant and historically relevant, then the article can be recreated. But looking at it this soon, this is obviously not going to be present yet. But if nothing is ever said about this again for the rest of time, then the world is losing nothing by deleting what is already here, which is not much. And after all, deleting this article does not mean information about this dissapears, there is List of internet phenomena for stuff like this (but this is categorically not an endorsement of a merge outcome, it can be deleted and redirects created. Several of the keep votes are pretty basic poor or invalid votes, and people who are trying to invoke NTEMP have not exactly proven this is notable beyond a WP:VAGUEWAVE, which can be applied to any old trivia on Google News on any given day. While space is not an issue, Wikipedia's funding drives most certainly will never cover such an approach to encyclopoedic worth. MickMacNee (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, change redirects of Cigar guy and Cigar Guy to point to List of Internet phenomena instead, and summarize this article into an item for that list. I don't think this article title is a likely search term, so no need to keep 2010 Ryder Cup photograph as a redirect. I am unconvinced that this topic has lasting encyclopedic value, and therefore, anything more than a bullet item (with a couple of references) in the List of Internet phenomena article is undue weight. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Internet phenomena as suggested by Andrwsc. Hellbus (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is no question that this photo/event has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Sure its silly fluff, but so is 90% all of news content, including, say, all the sports content we slavishly add to the project every day. But its really of no measurable benefit to the project to make value judgments to delete things like this that have received significant coverage (and do not disparage living persons). Thus, we have had an article on Tourist guy for almost six years, and it has withstood two deletion attempts in 2008-09. And there's also Crasher Squirrel, Bert is Evil, etc., all similar articles that have withstood deletion based on meeting WP:N (note, this is a valid OTHERSTUFF point, btw).--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If this coverage is an example of significant coverage, then what is insignificant coverage? Or are you just saying Wikipedia should keep all articles about any internet meme that simply makes the news (and citing those particular three articles is hardly proof of that, they are all very different to this). MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should keep articles that meet WP:N. I think we waste too much time arguing what meets that standard in an article like this because we find it unseemly, and the outcome is subjectively-based in middle-of-the-road cases. I shant endeavor to cite every internet meme article and say where this falls on the continuum. Easy cases of insignificant coverage abound, but we forget them because they are insignificant, i.e., something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haggard's Law which gets cited maybe once or twice and dies out instead of steamrolling for days in international press.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, keep in order to avoid wasting time deciding whether it is notable or not based on said policy? Sorry, but no. You really are going to have to provide some evidence that this goes beyond a news story and has some lasting legacy that warrants anything more than a mention in a list. wjematherbigissue 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage meets WP:N, we have 1000s of articles just like this. End of story. If you want to waste your time trying to get it deleted, fine. It does not improve the project to remove this article, in my opinion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, feel free to explain why this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS (a policy). Evidence not assertions required. wjematherbigissue 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is pretty straightforward on this. "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The example provided by WP:NOTNEWS of what is not appropriate is regular news reporting, e.g., separate articles on every round of golf Tiger Woods plays, or every football match or every U.S. baseball game. That is most of what is "news" in our newspapers. This event, however, is outside the realm of ordinary news humdrum coverage. Out of everything that was in the news on the day this photo was published, this is one of the very very few stories that day that grew a life of its own, and sufficient coverage, to merit inclusion. A big cricket game in New Dehli[1] would not.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I am still waiting for your explanation as to whether this means that Wikipedia's purpose is to give an article to every meme that makes the newspapers, or if not, how the coverage of this particular meme goes beyond what can be considered 'routine' news reporting of memes that make the news. (I could not find even a single news source that mentions Haggard's Law, so it's not particularly relevant to this issue as I see it.) And btw, we do write articles on routine sports matches, at the appropriate level of abstraction - not individual matches, but test series - see Australian cricket team in India in 2010–11. Giving a Wikipedia article to every meme that makes the news, with no consideration of anything else, is not even close to how we apply an encyclopoedic level of historical abstraction to such coverage, which is a concept which is made pretty clear in every essay and guidline that extends and inteprets NOT#NEWS w.r.t. notability. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you can predict the future. In actuality, however, social science research has shown that your proposition is wrong. People do remember or hear these things and search for information on them, 5, 10, 20, 100 years into the future.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fantasy research aside, you'll probably find that if you asked most people today you'd get a lot of blank looks, but that is irrelevant. No-one has been able to provide any evidence to suggest why it may be mentioned by reliable sources at any time in the future. So for now we delete it and add a one-liner to the list of internet stuff. Should it turn out that it does in fact have lasting impact, then we will recreate it. wjematherbigissue 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1835, some guy wrote a few fake articles about finding life on the moon. The Great Moon Hoax is still remembered today. In 1860, Grace Bedell convinced Abraham Lincoln to grow a beard; no doubt this was Lincoln "fancruft" at the time. I doubt you would have conceived that any reliable sources would mention these silly events in the future--but they did and still do. Just because the internet has been invented, human nature has not radically changed, these silly things are not forgotten. I don't see how compressing the information into one line will be helpful to humans in 2010 or 2160.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not own a crystal ball and thus cannot "provide any evidence" from the future, based on the spread and duration of the coverage this photo and meme are sure to make several "best of 2010" and "year in review" retrospectives in a few months time. It's certainly more prudent to keep the article then, perhaps, when we've reached some future point we can look back and see if coverage was sufficient. - Dravecky (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we delete now and recreate later, if and when such evidence materialises. Per WP:CRYSTAL, that is the way it works. wjematherbigissue
  • Keep It gets ample coverage. [2] Daily Mail says "None could have realised just how Pain's photo would soon take the online world by storm". They go into detail about the photograph, it not just a brief passing mention. Dream Focus 14:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The implication of which is that we write articles for every subject that.....is written about by newspapers. This is hardly a persuasive rebuttal to the argument that this is a very basic and very obvious NOT#NEWS violation. MickMacNee (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, the Daily Mail is not an independent source in this instance, being the employers of the photographer and presumably the rights holders of the photograph. As such they can well be expected to go overboard in their analysis – it is in their interest to do so. wjematherbigissue 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - all of the "ample coverage" says essentially the same thing. So how does it justify an entire article on the topic? Per my !vote above, it seems like WP:UNDUE weight to me. I would like to see some discussion on this aspect of the topic; why does this meme warrant an entire article instead of a bullet point paragraph in the List of Internet phenomena article? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond what I've already said above, the photo is being called by some as perhaps the greatest ever sports photo.[3] That goes beyond normal grandiose claims for memes.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a tongue-in-cheek comment in a blog posting. The #1 reason (claimed by the writer) is because the photographer's name is Mark Pain. Hardly an encyclopedic analysis of the photograph. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[4] ("Tiger Woods gives us the greatest golf photo you'll ever see").--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another ultra reliable tongue-in-cheek blog. By the way, plastering double and triple citations all over the article is doing nothing to demonstrate why this is notable. If anything it only shows that there is nothing to see here but a short-lived media storm over a minor internet event. wjematherbigissue 19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A typical deletion rationale in these discussions is "it really didn't get any coverage". I didn't endeavor to add 100 citations, just a few more to make it clear it wasn't just covered in The Mail.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per nom. Just short-term media sensationalism. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 05:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_Ryder_Cup_photograph&oldid=1136114360"