Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Fat People

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 redirect to Nicole Arbour#Career. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fat People

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it's no doubt been note worthy in the news, I question the video's lasting notability, as notability isn't temporary. Does it have the staying power notability wise as say Numa Numa speaking in terms of notability? Or will it be a hot topic news story that like so many fades in to obscurity when the news spike dies out? In short, this article stinks of recentism, and therefore, it might be too soon to have an article. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 08:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Nicole Arbour#Career, where it originally was a redirect to: article seems unsuitable per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTNOW. --Rubbish computer 08:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicole Arbour#Career. It's already covered there and at this point in time I don't particularly think that this warrants its own article. It received a spate of coverage when it released, but that's since slowed to a trickle. She's received a mild amount of coverage for another video about abortion, but not really for this specific video. It can pretty much be covered in her article in the career section or in a separate controversy section. If she continues to release videos of this nature then a separate controversy section might become necessary. I'd argue for probably leaving the article history behind since if this does get coverage a few years from now, we can have the article history to pull from and improve upon. Otherwise this is pretty much one of those situations where someone says something controversial on YT and it gains a brief amount of coverage for a short spurt of time. If this was the only thing she was known for then it'd be questionable whether or not the coverage was entirely heavy enough to have an article, but since there is an article on her (and it's fairly brief) there's no reason for a separate article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicole Arbour#Career. Per WP:NOTNEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." and WP:PERSISTENCE: "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." We live in a time where the bulk of "news" consists of content farms and click-bait, and perhaps it's time to update Andy Warhol's famous prediction: in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes and their viral videos for 10. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect like previously mentioned on Nicole Arbour's article, this seems to fit into her article as part of her career. Although all her videos are garbage (especially the Jesus one) this should just be redirected. Also make sure before redirecting this that some information makes it onto her main article. Adog104 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Adog104[reply]
Redirect to Nicole Arbour. Carrite (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2015 (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.