Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore's Penguin Army

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore's Penguin Army[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a YouTube video uploaded in 2006 that has received practically no news coverage in the last 12 years or so. While it was probably considered a "viral video" for its time, something like this with the number of views and amount of news coverage would be nearly insignificant today, and would probably not pass wp:WEB. So in other words, while it may have been notable back in 2006 and when it was first nominated for deletion the following year, it might not be so today. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not temporary and deleting this would allow climate deniers to cover up their activities. 163.170.130.6 (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. While it would be a footnote by modern standards, a video going viral in 2006, a year after YouTube was created and before going viral was a thing, seems fairly notable. Also, irrespective of whether this has specifically received news coverage in the last 12 years, it has been covered in books. See, e.g., Kerric Harvey, Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics (Sage, 2013), p. 39; Robert L. Heath, ‎H. Dan O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (2010), p. 392; Emma Bell, ‎Samantha Warren, ‎Jonathan E. Schroeder, The Routledge Companion to Visual Organization (2014), ~p. 449. BD2412 T 18:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notability is not temporary, and the coverage in books found shows that this was covered over a substantial period of time in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ephemeral two minute political youtube video that's been deleted is not an encyclopedic topic in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantic306: It appears that the video has not, in fact, been deleted. I don't see why this is any less encyclopedic of a topic than the one-minute Daisy commercial. BD2412 T 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, just watched it but surprised it only has 643,000 views which is low for a viral video imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stupid little thing that seems to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article and provided above are enough to demonstrate notability. (See also [1] via Henry Jenkins, who also wrote about it in his contribution to this 2009 book.) The view count may be low compared to modern viral sensations, but we don't make notability judgments based on YouTube views. What matters is that people wrote about it in a serious way, even years later. XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Squeeks past WP:GNG. The sources in the article are enough to demonstrate notability. Adding the ones above will improve the article. // Timothy :: talk 13:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a shameless WP:PILEON. I think this video is awful and a waste of storage on the Youtube server - but what do I know... The topic got e thinking about a video about an article we recently improved Democracy Manifest - some may not think it is not as funny as I do. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above and WP:NTEMP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 4 August 2020 (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.