Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Freak Out Ever

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Freak Out Ever[edit]

Greatest Freak Out Ever (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)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Lacks independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of the series. Yes it's very popular but popularity does not confer or establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So... what does? How is this different to star wars kid, numa numa, david after dentist, charlie bit my finger. They're all rather pointless, yet popular viral videos. That's the criteria. End of. I've already outlined different notable sources on the article discussion page; with respect, you're objections just don't make sense. Noodleki (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:GNG, notability is presumed when there are independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. The sources linked in the article are not reliable, for the most part being YouTube links to the videos themselves, sites that host one or more of the videos and blogs with no indication of editorial oversight. The counter-examples you've offered all have multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, Business Week, the BBC, Globe and Mail and many more. Even if they didn't, their existence doesn't mean this series should have an article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Kos is a reliable, editorial site - look it up on wikipedia. As is the talk radio meltdown article and mahalo.com. I put a good few hours work into the article, I'd appreciate it, if it was left.Noodleki (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Daily Kos link is to a story that originated at mepreport.com (which is also linked as a source) for which I see no evidence of editorial oversight. Same goes for mahalo.com (which accepts content from anyone, making it as unreliable as Wikipedia itself as a source) and the talk radio podcast. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, the fact that it was posted on Daily Kos is good enough, as you appear to concede that it does have sufficient 'editorial oversight.' The talk radio podcast is clearly an official site. Take a look. Also, comedycentral.com have an article, as do rudetube; two eminent sites, i think you'll agree.Noodleki (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RudeTube is merely hosting a video, which per WP:WEB doesn't confer notability. That Daily Kos reposted something doesn't mean that the site exercised any editorial control over the piece. I don't know what "official site" means or why the site's being "official" has an effect on its status as a reliable source. The comedycentral video addresses a single installment and does not establish the notability of the series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Noodleki, I understand that you put a lot of work into the article (by the way, read WP:MERCY), and the article is well-written with a lot of references, but the problem lies with notability. When I searched Google for this topic, I did find a lot of hits, but they all lead to blogs, YouTube and the like (as do the references in the article), and those kinds of sources do not qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia. For starters, anyone can upload a video onto YouTube. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the WEP guidelines: "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for the following:

Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." Being reported on the Daily Kos is a 'reliable published work in the form of a website,' I don't see how the fact that it was reposted has any bearing on its reliability. If the Times were to publish an article that the editor had found lying in a garbage dump - it would still be considered reliable as The Times printed it. Can you not see that? It's not trivial coverage (as delineated above) I hope I don't have to prove that exhaustively as well - the fact that this series has attracted the attention of two TV broadcasters who have both interviewed them and aired the footage; how is that not notable?Noodleki (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Erpert and nom. (Not often I'm that brief - they've said it already. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right; found a load of better source material, (just trawl through Google) the huffington post, the next web, heavy.com, the conservative journal, & lots more.Noodleki (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Huffington Post did indeed have a posting about it, but that is a blog (albeit a very prolific and respected one). The coverage is very much a "hey, look at this" rather than a "this is of lasting importance." The remainder of the references I could find were not WP:RS. For the love of peace, this is a series of youtube videos about a teenager throwing a fit. Please remember that notability is not temporary - which would confer permanent notability if we established notability, yes, but it cuts both ways. What we're looking for is long-term historical liability, as it is said. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Direct quote from WP:RS ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." As you admit, the Huffington Post falls squarely within that category; your objection that coverage was "hey, look at this"; is stated nowhere in the guidelines, you can't just invent problems out of thin air. "a series of youtube videos about a teenager throwing a fit:" - how is it any different to all the other 'unimportant' articles on other viral videos like Numa numa and chocolate rain; these have no innate importance to the furtherance of the pursuit of human knowledge and would definitely not be in a standard encyclopedia. However, the wiki guidelines are obviously more relaxed and allow for articles regarding unimportant topics, as long as they of interest to a large number of people. These clips have been seen by 100 million! people - that's more than many Hollywood films!! As to your objection about long-term notability, new clips are posted every month or so, with no signs of abating, his subscribers have grown steadily for over a year now, again with no signs of abating its far less temporary than similar articles about viral videos. I can only repeat, I've put up refs for lots of respected internet blogs that fall within the guidelines of wikipedia and I find this whole business rather unfair. The proof of the pudding is that the page has received hundreds of views in last couple of days. What more proof do you need that people are interested in this topic and want to read about it. If that's the case, is that not exactly the duty of Wikipedia to provide accurate information for its viewers on what they want to see??!!Noodleki (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, please format your comments to comport with guidelines through the use of indentations. It makes the conversation easier to follow. Second, "people like it" and "it's interesting" and "what about this other article?" are not valid reasons for keeping an article. Wikipedia's "duty" is to provide content that is reliably sourced to independent sources that significantly cover the subject. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this not reliably sourced; comedycentral.com, huffingtonpost.com, dailykos.com, theconservativejournal.wordpress.com talkradiomeltdown.com (official site of radio station) - how are these not reliable independent sources? I just don't understand. And just btw, I really don't understand why "people like it" is not a valid reason. That is the entire premise of what an encyclopedia is about. I shouldn't write an article about the contents of the blocked manhole in my garden, because no one is interested in that. One should, however, write articles on subjects that people are interested in.....No? And "what about this article" is definitely a valid reason. Either take down all similar articles or put them up; you can't deal with similar articles differently.Noodleki (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you're a new editor, but now it's become clear that you don't get it because you don't want to get it. Let's see what other editors have to say. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right; put up even more sources: knowyourmeme.com, videosift.com, kotaku.com, gametrailers.com, destructoid.com, jalopnik.com, inquistr.com. All official, reliable sites - is that enough? Please.... pretty please?Noodleki (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blogs that host video postings are not reliable sources. There is no such thing in Wikipedia terms as an "official" source so I don't know why you keep calling sources that. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't just host the video, they have articles written on them as well. How about actually checking them first - that would really be appreciated. And I do beg your pardon for calling them "official" - I'm new here and the jargon is a bit unfamiliar for me; I meant, of course "ex officio, ex cathedra." Sorry for the misunderstanding.Noodleki (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mean that, either... 'Ex officio' refers to that is part of someone's duties or priveleges as a result of them having a xertain job, 'Ex cathedra' refers to a pronouncement, literally by a bishop (the cathedra being his throne - and the cathedral being the church that houses it), that has the force of law. It is taken into other areas now, as bishops unless of Rome don't tend to lay down law without synods, convocations or whatever. Peridon (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are y'all talking about? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke. It's difficult to convey sarcasm over the internet.Noodleki (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added ANOTHER source; an article on collegehumor.com who have the first clip on their hall of fame. So that's at least ten reliable sites right there, with editorial oversight that all have articles written on this subject. Could someone explain to me, (please humor me as I am a newcomer) what problem there is with that as at the moment I'm completely mystified.Noodleki (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That isn't reliable either. When it comes to videos, CollegeHumor isn't much different than YouTube. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth not? Youtube isn't reliable because it doesn't have editorial oversight; collegehumor, however, does! And what's wrong with all the other sources I've put up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even assuming arguendo that every site you've found hosting the first video (with or without a few sentences of commentary) constitutes a reliable source, they would only establish the notability of the first video. The notability of any one episode does not confer notability onto subsequent episodes, any more than the pilot of a TV series being notable confers notability onto, say, episode 22. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • knowyourmeme.com talks about the first three videos, jalopnk.com talks about the third one, netinsanity.com references the second clip, talkradiomeltdown.com discusses the series as a whole, defaultprime.com discusses the Tosh.0 episode, videosift.com and dailymotion.com has a few of the videos, kotaku.com and destructoid.com have remixes and dailykos.com analyses the series as a whole.Noodleki (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop saying that dailykos covers the series. That site reposts an article from another blog. Hosting remixes of an episode doesn't make the site a reliable source. You can post a hundred links, a thousand links, to sites that host one or another of the videos and that still doesn't establish notability. All it establishes is that a lot of bloggers think watching this kid have a tantrum is amusing. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop saying that the site reposts an article from another blog, sir. So what? If the editor of the Times found a well-written article floating about in his bathtub, and decided to print it - THAT establishes notability. The fact that it wasn't originally written by a reporter for the Times in no way impugns on its notability. The fact that the editor decided to print it in his newspaper means that it was sufficiently notable to warrant it. This is obvious!!! You then repeat your statement that sites that host the videos don't confer notability, so I must wearily repeat what I've said many times before, that if you actually look at the sites I've referenced, you will see that many of them have written articles on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added article from gawker.tv and full length article from gamers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 July 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/Greatest_Freak_Out_Ever&oldid=1070410787"