Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyebrows (advert)

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eyebrows (advert)[edit]

I am not 100% satisfied that this article is notable, correctly titled, or has any place in an encyclopedia. I don't feel that strongly about this, but would like to be sure of the consensus on such things.

I won't object to a SNOW keep if the immediate votes indicate that things might go that way. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication given why this advert is notable, no awards won etc. feydey (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, after review I still see that the article attests that the advert is notable because: It has been reported on in numerous news media and blogs and resulted in many people doing eyebrow dances in YouTube videos and parodied in television program The Sunday Night Project. Some news clippings, blogs, Youtube and one parody is not enough for me, as there are hundreds of adverts mentioned on newspapers, blogs and parodied on Youtube. So still not notable. P.S. The BBC column "Ad Breakdown" alone has around 50 reviews of adverts. feydey (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are millions of adverts produced all the time. How many of these adverts get news coverage in the national newspapers, from the tabloid Sun, to the Financial Times and by the BBC. This is clearly notable, and is covered in verifiable, reliable news sources. And it is more popular than Cadbury's previous Gorilla (advert). Also check out the number of discussions it has provoked by searching Google blogs or Google groups or Google web.Charvest (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently WP:notable in the UK. --Boston (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not 100% satisfied that the nomination has passed WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am delighted to be able to assure anyone interested that the nomination has passed WP:BEFORE as I have followed the instructions there. As I distinctly said in my nom, it's a weak delete but I think worth looking at, but I would be interested nonetheless to hear if Colonel Warden actually has a rationale for his "keep" other than that he thinks I didn't read the deletion policy? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 21:07, 1 March 2009 (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.