Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants

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. This is a largely indescriminate list focusing heavily on a recent event. Our concern for lists is not merely that each entry be supported by a source but that some encyclopedic constraint on entry actually exists. In this case the only constraint is that someone famous dumped a bucket of ice on their head for charity. There's not much of an upper bound for entries there and more importantly, there's little preventing the list from becoming a directory of specific events shown to exist.

Participants (on both sides) note that the Ice Bucket Challenge is "notable" and that individual members are notable, but this list merely represents the intersection of those two things. The clever memetic nature of the challenge makes managing this list quite difficult, as a number of advocates for deletion have noted. Although that is not, by itself, cause for deletion it's a good indicator that the list represents only that intersection.

Further, the size and nature of the list itself makes a merge highly problematic. Many editors have noted that merging this list into Ice Bucket Challenge will cause that page to grow unwieldy quickly. I'm inclined to agree. Even if we retain this as a standalone list, the nature of the list itself subverts reasonable attempts to cut it down to size. Proposals that the list be limited to particularly significant participants or actions are bound to be difficult and contentious because the list itself is indiscriminate. Again, that's an editorial concern but it flows directly from the reasons for deletion.

Those arguing to keep the list have noted (correctly) that each element meets the MOS on lists of people. While true, that's merely a guide to what goes on the list and not proof that the list is constrained by some encyclopedic interest. If we're interested in bringing the MOS into the discussion we could just as easily look at our guidance on standalone lists which points to the limited value of indiscriminate (though blue linked) lists.

By the numbers, the debate is relatively pitched. We do see some sockpuppet/SPA contributions, but that's not by itself dispositive or reason to distrust the sentiment behind keeping the list.

The compelling counteraguments which find support are, variously: the list itself isn't a red linked mess, the size/nature of the list makes it inappropriate for the related article, notability is permanent (directly responding to the RECENT charge), and the list itself is meticulously and prodigiously sourced. However, the arguments for deletion flow from relatively well established policy (mainly NOT) and even if we accept the majority of arguments to keep the list, the concerns about its indiscriminate nature remain. As such, I see a consensus to delete the list. I agree with many comments that a merge would be undesirable or difficult to accomplish and I don't think the title is a likely search term, so a redirect (with or without history) seems unwise. Protonk (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants

List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Indiscriminate list of people in the Ice Bucket Challenge. Having a list of everybody who dumps ice water on their head and donates to charity is hardly encyclopedic, and would be similar to listing all the participants in a marathon. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - I worked on this article several times during the last days when I typed in names of Ski athletes including video references. Somebody frequently deletes those names. It seems to me that somebody removes all names of people who are not well known in the US... As there is no guiding principle on which prominent names should be included this article should be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma75k (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  @Ma75k: One, just because you're having a problem with an editor doesn't mean that you should delete the article. Two, where else could US Olympic athletes Mikaela Shiffrin and Lindsey Vonn be well known? Dominique is the only one you added with this edit who's still on the list, and Dominique is Swiss. Maybe the reason Lindsey was deleted was because you spelled her name wrong. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge, I don't think a separate article should have been created in the first place. I understand that the list is quite long, but the majority of coverage from the Challenge seems to come from the celebrities participating in it, so it is useful in that regard.LM2000 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - While I didn't support splitting from the main article initially, the list has grown considerably. It's well sourced and I believe the Challenge is as notable as it is because of the various famous participants, so this list remains useful. A collapsible option on the main Ice Bucket Challenge remains a better solution than total deletion.LM2000 (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. While this list should not exist as a standalone article, I do not believe that it is as indiscriminate as the nominator claims. The overwhelming majority of people listed are notable individuals with articles whose participation is sourced by reliable media sources. So long as only notable people whose participation is sourced are included, I believe that this list will be fine for inclusion on the Ice Bucket Challenge Page (preferably under a collapsible to prevent it from taking up too much space). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete When I voted to merge this list into the Ice Bucket Challenge article, it looked like this:[1]. It was much shorter, better organized and sourced and listed a proportionate amount of people who were legitimately famous. Now, it is unorganized, sourced poorly, incredibly long and contains a disproportionate number of people who only just meet notability requirements and are thus not particularly famous. While I debated several people on this point, I am now going to have to agree that this list is indiscriminate, or at the very least to overly broad to be of use to anyone. While I'm exited that so many people have contributed to this cause, I think that it has ultimately been demonstrated that any living person with an article could potentially be included on this list. I would not be surprised if the number of people potentially covered by this list entered the tens or even hundreds of thousands.

Now, the reason that I originally wanted a merge was because I felt that the fact that so many notable people from so many different fields were participating was an important aspect of the Ice Bucket Challenge to cover in the main article. However, at this point it would just be simpler to create a section in the article that directly states this, and perhaps namedrop a few uber-notable individuals (such as former president George W. Bush) whose participation was covered by reliable media sources (and by reliable I mean CNN or New York Times quality, not celebrity gossip sites, not sources owned by the notable subject and most certainly not YouTube or Facebook). While it would be possible to do a selective merge, it would ultimately take far less effort to start a section in the Ice Bucket Challenge article from scratch than to merge this list. As such, I support a delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, actually. I'm not sure I agree with the rationale for listing this, either. People have dumped ice water on their head in the past, and will in the future, but this list refers to a specific calling among celebrities, and isn't indiscriminate. Certainly not everyone notable will complete this challenge, and arguably, it's already on the downswing now. I'm a little concerned the list would weigh down the Ice Bucket Challenge article, which I imagine is why it was split off in the first place. As long as redlinks and entries with unreliable sources are kept out (so far, so good), I see no problem with this. --CrunchySkies (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Merge/Rename The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is a significant event in social sciences domain. A list like this will help in understanding its reach very easily. It should be renamed to 'Notable ALS Ice Bucket Challenge participants' or merge to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge article. Anu Raj (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete This is an indiscriminate list, with no clear reason to suppose there is even a close connection between the various people so involved, and the whole thing is just plain trivial. This could be List of people who support awareness of X and would just be plain overly broad. This is just another example of extreme recentism and too much emphasis on passing fads in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. It was siphoned off of the Ice Bucket Challenge article because it was getting too long and overwhelming the article. I think it's too soon to delete it. It has notability. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic that makes it quite simple if one remembers this is not yahoo news. 208.54.80.186 (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep There is too many notable characters to merge, and also many story, such as pointing Neymar out Zúñiga. I think it has potentiality to developing as add some news. And, celebrities in South Korea (for instance, Ryu Hyun-jin) also participated it -so, size will bigger.--Reiro (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This list will keep growing over the time, so you can't merge it with the main article, and it's very interesting --Mimiru123 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. Not sure why this list is described as "indiscriminate" as the criteria seem quite clear. I'm not saying it's very interesting or useful, but still seems to be encyclopedic. Awaiting the celebrity charity marathon with some trepidation. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep It's a long and growing list, and can not be merged into the main article. It has got a lot of media coverage all over the world and definitely is notable. The Ice Bucket Challenge article has got over 1 million page views in the last two days alone. 117.192.170.214 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Many many notable participants and the challenge itself is gathering a lot of coverage in reputable publications.Soupy sautoy (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunately, this is indiscriminate information. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There are too many mentioned now, but in a way we may think we don't know x person and then he might be important in his country? Anyhow the page is a mess now. A new editor has started categorizing, which is good, but it's done per activity. Maybe it should have remained as it was and we only should have created sections per letters and then write next to the person what he does? 83.134.218.196 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Weak keep I want this page to be kept because I like knowing who has done the challenge, but that is basically WP:LIKEIT. However, the article is well sourced. JDDJS (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This list is a notable list of notable people doing a notable thing. It should be kept on that basis alone. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. Spirit of Eagle has hit all the important points. The article is well-sourced, but has no need to stand alone. JimVC3 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Changing my opinion as the list has changed. Once again, Spirit of Eagle has hit all the important points. This is no longer an encyclopedic article. JimVC3 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, excessively trivial information. I can understand that it overwhelmed the article, but why have it anywhere on Wikipedia? Not sure what a "notable list" is, per Étienne Dolet above; and, while the list certainly contains some notable people, I completely disagree that they're doing a notable thing. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC).

• hmm, maybe not as encyclopedic as other chilly stuff, admittedly. But at least we know why all the ice is going ... Martinevans123 (talk)

• Keep and perhaps rename List of notable Ice Bucket Challenge participants. It usefully completes the Ice Bucket Challenge article, giving information that people search ; the participation of famous people to the Ice Bucket Challenge has contributed to the large media coverage (in the US and abroad) and is a thing in itself. And the list is big enough (with 268 references now) to justify its own article. Could be merged, but definitely not deleted. Bosozoku (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Can anyone explain to me how the subject of this list qualifies as notable for a stand-alone list per WP:NLIST? Where is the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources of this group of people as "Ice Bucket Challenge participants"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sub-question - doesn't this article survive, at least partly, on the notability of the subject matter of the main article? If there are sufficient WP:RS sources supporting that, isn't this list notable by default - it's just more detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge... In the first place it should never have been removed from this article; and only notable people, with Wikipedia articles and references are in the list.Arussom (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This article has very high notability, due to its relevancy to current events. Also, it is a list of notable people engaging in a charitable cause, which is worthy of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohfinite (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Ice Bucket Challenge is the main article for the What Ice Bucket Challenge exactly is, the participants' list could be huge, there a lot of celebrities that actually are doing it and more famous people will add to this cause. Does make any sense to have an Article where the List of participants are more important than the concept of Ice Bucket Challenge? I vote for keep the main article and have an article only for the list. 8110charlie (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Okay, the last "keep" vote did it for me: we now have a growing sockpuppet farm voting to keep this article. There are multiple users participating in this discussion who have very few total edits and have not edited in months and in several case years. This has all of the hallmarks of one puppet-master employing multiple sock puppets to skew the vote in this AfD, including the following:

1. User talk:8110charlie: contributions - no edits from January 2014 until yesterday

Why I am a sockpuppet? I use Wikipedia a lot but I don't edit it frequently. A coworker told me about this discussion and I were interested to participate in it. 8110charlie (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

2. User:Mohfinite: contribution - three total edits, and none since December 2013 until today

3. User:Bosozoku: contributions - five total edits, and none since April 2013 until today

4. User:Soupy sautoy: contributions - no edits from January 2013 until today

5. User:Mimiru123: contributions - newly registered account, all edits to the list or this AfD

Yeah, I registered recently. Because no one was doing what was necessary : 1) the list kept being deleted and created again on the main page, instead doing something clever. 2) Some people would keep deleting some names for some random reason (Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, for instance). 3) Some names were missing.Mimiru123 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

6. User:Reiro: contributions - three edits since January 2014

7. User:117.192.170.214: contributions - IP user, only edit is this AfD

It's time to request a sock puppet investigation. This AfD smells like a giant sock puppet farm, and someone is trying to game the system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment regarding SPI Update - I have initiated a sock puppet investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soupy sautoy. everyone is welcome to review the editing histories linked above, draw their own conclusions, and voice their opinion at the newly opened SPI. I am changing my !vote to a firm "delete." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, there's no reason to suspect these are sockpuppets, and if you do, this is not the proper venue. The challenge has attracted an unprecedented amount of interest and coverage, even among young people who would ordinarily have little or no interest. The fact that lapsed editors are interested in the list is to me more of a sign that the challenge is hugely popular than a sign that something nefarious is going on. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Just because some of us are not active Wiki Editors, does not make us "Sock Puppets". Is this what the whole Wikipedia Editor Circlejerk people talk about when it comes to Contributing? Instead of jumping to conclusions regarding someone having the motivation to rig the votes, how about be receptive of the fact that people care enough regarding an article's deletion to make an account/re-log in and vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohfinite (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment, Ok. I admit it. I have a secret sockpuppet. B. Gates (Medina, Washington) 18:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete It's a cute meme, and the meme itself is notable, but there is zero way a list of each notable (per WP) participate is encyclopedic material, most being primary sources. There are a few notable cases (for example, the Foo Fighters doing a Carrie-like approach to it) that have received more attention which can be used as examples, but a full list of basically what is doing a 1-minute act is a violation of WP:IINFO. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a meme, and calling it that is a real disservice and blow to the suffers of this disease, who heretofore have had little or no voice. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Something being a meme is not a shameful thing. It is just that - it is something that propagated quickly on the internet through social media. It also in this case is helping a charity. Hence the need to keep the main article. But as a meme, documenting every detail is not our purpose -that's what a site like Know Your Meme can go into. We need to summarize the major point, and that, in this case, highlighting a few notable challengers, not every single one of them. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as I agree with the nominator that it's an indiscriminate list of trivial information - celebrities pouring water over themselves for 10 seconds is a hardly notable act or encyclopedic enough for a list. However, I am torn between delete and merge into Ice Bucket Challenge as it does add to the challenge's overall notability if it's proven that lots of celebrities have taken part. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this should never have been made into a standalone list. However, I feel that it is unusual for so many celebrities, entrepreneurs and political leaders to video tape themselves getting doused with freezing water for a charitable cause. While not supporting the continued existence of this list as a standalone, I feel that the fact that so many notable people have participated in the charity is worthy of coverage within the Ice Bucket Challenge article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A fair question to ask is , are those being listed (eg specifically the ones getting dumped on) actually following through on the charity aspect? The main article begs the question that one variation has people either donate $100 or dump ice water without the subsequent $10, eg just propagating the meme. As there's very little way to confirm that for some of the videos (like, its not clear from the Kermit the Frog one that there was a donation), then this is just "who helped spread the meme". Additionally, if this was a normal charity drive with an open register of donors, we would not list out who donated to that drive save for a few examples that were called out by third-parties. Every blue-linked person involved is far too indiscriminate in a case like this. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that it is relevant whether the celebrity donated money or not, as the rules consider getting drenched with ice water without donating to be a valid form of participation. I know that this has been criticized by some sources, but that is besides the point for this AfD. As for your point about charity drives, I completely agree with your point. I would note that the overwhelming majority of those who have participated are not listed. Hundreds of thousands of people have participated worldwide, but the list is obviously much shorter than that because only notable people who "were called out by third-parties" are included (any that do not met this criteria should be removed). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that it is relevant whether the celebrity donated money or not, as the rules consider getting drenched with ice water without donating to be a valid form of participation. Then this list has nothing to do with the charity effort. It's about propagating a meme, and we don't document each person that does that (even the subset of people noted by third-party sources). Since there's nearly zero effort to participate in the "spread" (filming yourself being dumped with water), that's gives no significance to this list. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The rules of the ice bucket challenge are that a person either donate money or drench themselves with ice water. If they drench themselves in water, they are participating even if they have not donated money. Whether you want to call getting drenched without donating "charity" may be a point of debate, but people who do this are still participants by the definition of the challenge. I honestly do not understand how someone can fail to be a participant in an event that they are taking part in.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying they aren't participating, but now from the standard of WP's indiscriminate information, this is basically an equivalent to a person using a specific hashtag. There's no effort or end result beyond a feel-good aspect. Add that this is purposed set to be a 3^N viral expansion, and there's no practical end to this list. We do not document events of this trivial nature to this level, period. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't merge: When this list was a part of the main article, it dominated the article both in size and in edit frequency, making maintenance of the rest of the article difficult. If it is merged back into the main article, I expect the same problems to arise again. I'm happy with deleting or keeping the page, but I oppose merging. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

First Break

• Delete I'm glad someone nominated this list for deletion. If not I would easily have. I totally agree with the nominator. Purely unencyclopedic list, can I add myself to the list too? I feel like that's what this list is encouraging and many of these celebrities don't even donate! JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, people are not supposed to be added to lists unless 1. they are notable and 2. their inclusion is backed up by a reliable source. So far, this list is in compliance with the guideline, so you would not be able to add yourself unless you are a notable individual (COI issues notwithstanding).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know the rules! I've been here for 5 and a half years I was just stating that because that's how the list feels like. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@JayJay:, uh no. Technically speaking, you have only been here for 5 years, 6 months and 30 days.  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• keep - There is no need to delete this as it is a current social craze which has been done by hundreds of celebrities. The views of some wikipedia editors should not be the ones that dimminish the celebrities who have completed this! 01:45, 22 August 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.64.38 (talk)

Just because some celebrities have taken part in a "social craze", why does that belong in a Wikipedia list? That's like having a 'List of celebrities who have been rick roll'd" or "List of celebrities who have posted a lolcat photo". I don't think it's notable enough to make a standalone list, especially when a lot of people in this list are Z-listers or only just notable enough to be on Wikipedia themselves. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 15:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? The celebrities who have taken part could probably buy wikipedia and a bunch of jobsworth editors do not need this much say on something that hundreds of celebrities and even former presidents have taken part in.

• Comment@Dirtlawyer1: I'm embarrassed by nominated sock puppet, but I'm not sock puppet. I practice in Korean Wikipedia for 5 years[2], and have not active additional wiki accounts. --Reiro (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete The list is indiscriminate and ill-defined, and unencyclopedic. Those are grounds for deletion, and not for a "merger." Additionally, and as a mere comment, it is an extremely asinine case of celebrities saying "LOOK AT ME!" when they pour cold water or icewater on their heads in response to a "challenge" from some other celebrity, to avoid having to make some small donation to a charity. In other cases, they do the "LOOK AT ME!" media event and also make some small charitable donation, further demonstrating the pointlessness of the "challenge." They should just get over themselves. They are not coaches who just won the Superbowl. Edison (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a good summary of the problem that I'm describing in my comments above to Spirit of Eagle. It is a zero-effort feel-good publicity stunt for these celebrities, save for the handful that did something much more more interesting (eg Foo Fighters), and the brief list of those can be mentioned in prose in the main article. To document each one is feeding that publicity machine with no real reason. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep it's complete and well referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlybman (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an indiscriminate list with no specific inclusion criteria. Most of the sources are rubbish - first party Facebook, Instagram and Youtube posts do not meet WP:RS. It's unlikely that coherent criteria could ever be implemented. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment @Modest Genius Wrong, most of the sources are reliable. Several new users or IPs have added people citing Instagram or Youtube as it was easier than looking for an article about them, but I'm sure that most of them can be backed with better sources; that problem can be easily fixed. --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• In the first ten footnotes on the list, five are from Facebook.com, YouTube.com or Comicbooks.ocm -- none of which satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources per WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1 I know, but I'm saying that this problem can be fixed and we could remove the people where nothing else can be found. So yeah we can work on finding better sources if that's truly the problem. I for example always try to have good sources when I add someone new to the list. However, if you feel that the content overall does not belong here, that's another problem.  ;) --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Per policy, but per policy, WP:PRIMARY sources are OK for simple incontrovertible facts. ("A primary source may ... be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source ....") are OK for simple incontrovertible facts. ("A primary source may ... be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source ...."). Softlavender (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, SL, primary sources may be used to establish facts (but not notability), but we generally do not treat blogs and other self-published sources as reliable sources per WP:SPS and [[W{:RS]]. Bottom line: YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc., are generally not considered acceptable sources on Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

These aren't blogs, and they are not establishiing notability. They are the WP:PRIMARY sources used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Exactly per policy. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Although in general I hate deleting any content from Wikipedia this list is beyond pointless and has no value. There are way too many celebrities doing it and what level celebrity should we include as a minimum (everyone from B class KPOP stars and noname US wannabe actors are doing it). The list would number in the thousands. Even as a tool to raise awareness for ALS the entire fad is useless as nearly all videos forget to ask for donations and most celebs are not donating. kav2001c (talk) 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's entirely a judgement of the trend, and not of the notability of the trend. The fact so many notable people have been convinced to do such a strange activity is notable. Whether the campaign is effective is irrelevant. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The fact that so many people have done it and has been documented is the reason Ice Bucket Challenge isn't going anywhere. But we don't need to document each individual person as long as sourcing points out that hundreds/thousands have done it already. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep I think it needs some improvement, but it's a nice, well-sourced list. I can see some people's points in their deletion rationale. Now Neutral. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Firm Delete The page is a non-encyclopedic list of "celebrities" pouring water their head. A list of those "celebrities", with RSs, who actually donated would be more beneficial. A simple video of the participants dumping water on their head does not prove they still made the $10 donation. Just because they videoed themselves pouring water on their head and posted it on Youtube, Instagram, or Facebook does not mean they participated in "charity", "philanthropy", "donations", etc. and in fact them dumping water on their head is a way of avoiding paying the $100 to ALS. The page will have high viewership for maybe another month or so and then will die down exponentially.

The list is literally growing by the minute and is getting out of control. Don't take this seriously but, it might almost be easier to note all the celebrities who have not participated in the challenge. :) Meatsgains (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: This isn't notable for Wikipedia. When someone will start an list article about all the prominent people who participated the necknomination? --Goroth (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Thousands of celebrities around the world are doing this and the numbers of articles in this list are growing higher. I think we should add all the articles about celebrities in Wikipedia to this list in the future. And as some other users said, this list will die down exponentially a few months later.Keivan.f^Talk 17:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The "ice bucket challenge" seems to be a notable fad. People like to appear in videos, and pretend for an instant that they are something special, and there is a weak association to a good cause. But there are numerous similar fads with articles, and the participants ARE NOT LISTED IN STAND-ALONE ARTICLES! In the articles about the other fads, only a few participants are named in the articles, because they started it, or because they were notable in how extremely they did it. See, for example: Phonebooth stuffing, Pole-sitting, Goldfish swallowing, Panty raid, Streaking,, Hunkerin', Planking (fad), Flash mob, and the very similar Youtube "challenges" Cinnamon challenge, Saltine cracker challenge, and Salt and ice challenge. I saw no stand-alone lists of participants other than a few mentioned in the articles for having originated it or somehow doing it in extreme or novel ways. Edison (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a fad, it's a charity fundraising drive event. Softlavender (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

How many people on this list are actually donating money, given they are taking the cheap way out of just dumping water on their head instead of actually donating $100 to the charity? In most cases we can't tell (I suspect some are, not all of these are avoiding the charity part, but we can't say all of them). --MASEM (t) 19:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You've misunderstod the challenge. It's not a one or the other thing. The ice bucket raises awareness, and everyone who does the ice-bucket part challenge is encouraged if not expected to also donate. That's how the challenged has raised $53 million in less than two months. Softlavender (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As the article states, and as I know people personally have done it, the "alternate" rules of just dousing oneself with water to avoid any charity element is commonplace, so unless the noted celebs actually state "Oh, and I donated too", we cannot assume these people are donated. You take that out, and just noting who is raising awareness of a cause by showing a 1-2 minute video on social media is far from an event we should even be documenting. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - While it may not be notable for other people, it is still a useful information for research purposes. Being encyclopedic needs all the data and information that it can get as long as it is well sourced. 112.198.77.131 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument (mind you, I can see how following the challenge-it-forward to investigate how the phenomena spread of interest to those in studies of social sciences but the data here is nowhere close to helping with that.) --MASEM (t) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep for now - The challenge seems enough to pass muster, per WP:NOTE, albeit barely. A merge would only make the parent article much more unwieldy, so this seems to be the lesser of two evils. I would say revisit this after a couple months when the fad seems to have died down again before making a final decision as to its fate. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 18:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Critical article, meets any and all policies, and will eventually expand in scope to where there is no plausible way to contain in the parent. Neukenjezelf (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - There are multiple users participating in this discussion who have very few total edits and have not edited in months and in several case years. This has all of the hallmarks of one puppet-master employing multiple sock puppets to skew the vote in this AfD, including the following:

1. User:Neukenjezelf: contributions - 2 edits from August 2014 until today

2. User:112.198.77.131: contributions - IP user

Keivan.f^Talk 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: I was going to suggest the same thing but you beat me to it. Meatsgains (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

lengthy unrelated chatter

Keep has 402 sources, must be notable. </sarcasm></wit></humor></closingadminignore>--v/r - TP 21:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: Well, I don't know why you said this, but because it has 402 sources it doesn't mean that it's notable. Some of them aren't reliable. We discuss about the material of this list here.Keivan.fTalk 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC) @Keivan.f: I hope someone else is kind enough to explain this to you. I'm just going to headdesk. On a related note, how is the planet Vulcan this time of year?--v/r - TP 22:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC) @Keivan.f: TP's post is what we call sarcasm... haha Meatsgains (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: AfD is no place for sarcasm anyway. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Really? Says whom? Where is the policy?--v/r - TP 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: Are you taking WP:SARCASM too seriously? Usually pages in the WP namespace tagged with "Humorantipolicy" say that you should do the opposite of what you really should. (Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies, for example.) P.S. Aha, I knew I saw it somewhere! Here it is. Specifically "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool." --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC) What? Who said anything about a personal attack? Who am I personally attacking? I think this is the time for your to graciously step out and retract whatever argument you are trying to make. There is nothing against humor on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 06:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: So I should find someone else who is kind enough to explain something to me. If you want something to be explained, explain it yourself.Keivan.fTalk 07:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I've already done so. Since you apparently didn't get the obvious, and I do mean obvious, someone else will have to explain it to you. Sometimes people are incapable of seeing something right in front of them.--v/r - TP 18:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: Let me tell you something. I don't need anyone, especially you, to be worry about what I see. I see what I want. And I think the obvious thing that you mentioned is right in your opinion but wrong in my mind. Keivan.fTalk 08:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Why do you ping me? Everyone else understood me, I don't need to keep getting called back by you. Not my fault you are having difficulties. Either you are incapable of getting it or you refuse to get it. Either way, I can't help you.--v/r - TP 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: I wasn't saying you personally attacked anyone, I just stated the line where it says to avoid sarcasm! Couldn't you see the bolded text? And don't say "there is nothing against humor on Wikipedia". There isn't anything against it period, but this is on AfD's page! I'm not against humor on Wikipedia at all anyway, but AfD is just not the place for it. --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Ahh, so you cherry picked lines from an essay to support what you were saying without reading the essay in context? I see. The essay says not to use sarcasm to personally attack someone - it does not say not to use sarcasm ever. Next time, you should try not cherry picking.--v/r - TP 18:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: Maybe it was just about personal attacks. Honestly I wasn't trying to "cherry pick". I read it as "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you, avoid the use of sarcastic language, and stay cool." --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Righteo - that's my understanding too. So I ask you again, who was I personally attacking? My exact comment "Keep has 402 sources, must be notable. </sarcasm></wit></humor></closingadminignore>". Where is the attack and who is it directed at? Did you read the part of WP:NPA (a policy, unlike your essay) that says "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack"? It appears to me the only one here making personal attacks is you. I'll accept your apology.--v/r - TP 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: No, I meant "Do not make personal attacks, do not use sarcasm either" I meant not having anything to do with personal attacks! --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @TParis: Adding to that, I'd like to see someone else's opinion about this. Feeling that wherever I get into a dispute with someone more respected than me, they do everything but personally attack me, I always try not to personally attack others. I hope that once this is resolved we can be on good terms. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC) You were never on bad terms with me, I've been screwing with you from the start. You should've bowed out earlier, I know these policies frontwards, backwards, upside down, and in the mirror universe.--v/r - TP 01:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Um, the first sentence of your reply sounds like you were testing me to see if I'd give in, and the second sentence sounds like I'm doomed because I didn't give in? I still don't see why sarcasm is needed here, but I give up. Maybe I use common sense too much. I am an administrator at Wikidata after all (a place where common sense practically rules). --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Amaryllis, would you mind dropping this? It's prolonging a completely unnecessary thread in an already overlong AfD. Everyone, even people who voted Keep for real (that includes me), could see that TP was making an extremely well-labeled joke. Could you please just step back and call it a day, for the sake of those of us who want this page to be navigable? Thanks. If you have anything further to discuss with TP, please retire to his Talk page, if you would. Thanks again! Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC) @Softlavender: I said I gave up. One main reason I started with this was I thought TP didn't label his sarcasm, since Keivan was confused about it. Dropped. --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Merge into main article - per above. The article is filled trivia. Merging perhaps the most notable citizens into the main article.  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Break

• Keep as per reason by Soupy sautoy, Reiro and few others. Also, we have way too many sources and media coverige to delete it. When cure for ALS is found thanks to this, this will be even more important. This is not only trivia now, it will be historic event, i think. --94.189.198.68 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't keep articles based on number of sources. Additionally, the impact and importance is sufficiently described in broad terms (as in, not who did it, but estimates numbers of how many did it) at Ice Bucket Challenge, and that is in no danger of being deleted. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't have time to read through all the reasons cited by other people here, but it seems to me that this is clearly notable, as large numbers of the participants listed here have their involvement listed in multiple sources online, and the list itself is well-sourced. I've already found this article useful, and unless the same type of list is also being extensively compiled somewhere else, then I'm sure many other people will as well. In fact, if it does get deleted, I might even request that a copy of its final state be moved to my userspace (if that would be acceptable), even though it wouldn't be getting updated anymore. I would support changing the title to reflect the fact that it basically just includes celebrities, though, if a new title could be agreed upon. Alphius (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We are not here to compile lists that no one else is compiling, that's original research. That's why the issue of the topic's notability is begged - not the notability of the ice bucket challenge, but the importance of knowing each person that has participated in it. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Keep if we merged this list with the main article on this subject, it would take too long to scroll through. --23.242.72.149 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep It is a list of notable individuals who have participated, it satisfies the requirements for a list article. James ^{(T • C)} • 3:57pm • 04:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Again some IP users are voting for keeping this list:

1. User:94.189.198.68: contributions

2. User:23.242.72.149: contributions

Keivan.f^Talk 07:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete What value does this article serve? Who would actually read this article? I think that if you answer that question, you'll agree this article is pointless. The only possible reason anybody might find any interest in this article is if they're perhaps some kid showing off their own name. I learn absolutely nothing of consequence from the existence of this list. David Condrey (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  I expect it would be read by celebrities wondering which other fellow celebrity has not yet been challenged. Perhaps they need their own Icebucketpedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC) (p.s. quite frankly, David, your career in afternoon TV chat-shows, and pet-food commercial voice-overs is sadly over, luvvie)

  Which means as soon as the fad/viral dies out, the list becomes useless. Yet another reason to delete. (And I haven't checked but I would suspect Know Your Meme would be the best site for this information). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  um, ice-cube salesmen? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see the point in the list to be fair. I'm sure people can google who has done it and if they look hard enough they may find a list somewhere in the internetverse. But the list will keep growing. People who don't currently have a wikipedia page may, in time, become notable enough in the future and be added to the list. It will constantly get "vandalised" with people adding or deleting participants. And if it becomes a thing and occurs next year... what then? Two separate list? One giant list? Then there's the people who don't do the challenge but still make a video saying they donated (like Chris D'Elia). And then there's the categories. Currently Actors/Directors/Voice Actors/Producers/Composers etc are currently lumped together... but as the list grows the chances that these will be split into subcategories is high and that in itself will cause problems. Then there's the people who fit multiple categories so appear more than once (Victoria Beckham for example, is on the list twice). And the definition of notable is vague. Does being famous mean it is a notable video? Or is notable when a celebrity does something different? Most videos are just people saying they are doing it, they nominate the next people and then dump the water on themselves and thats it. Mark Zuckerberg's is notable because of who he nominated. Dave Grohl's in notable because of the homage of Carrie. So yeah. I'm for deleting the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.155.253 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2014
• Delete reflection of a short lived hype. The Banner talk 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with all 'Keep' comments above, It is an informative list on a popular current event. Not only will this be a current issue, but it is memorable event that deserves encyclopaedic coverage. 151.229.241.50 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Not important enough 24.132.94.37 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Can we close this debate already and delete the article or we have to wait 5 more days? 83.134.218.196 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• There is certainly no consensus to delete. Are you proposing the AfD is closed early? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes that's what I would like but I don't know whether it sometimes happen or not so I was just wondering :) The list is getting out of control now. There may not be a clear consensus now, but you have to keep in mind that most people who were in favor of keeping it were either newbies (who created an account for this matter only) or not very active users in general, which could explain that they might not know Wikipedia's standards. Several users who have been here active for a long time have changed their vote since then. 83.134.218.196 (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• We don't "weight" votes depending on length of editing. In fact we don't even have votes. But what would you regard as "in control" exactly? Oh, and as you are not editing with a user name, does that mean you are also "a newbie"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• @83.134.218.196: I'm newbie in English WP, but I also heavy editor in Korean WP. So I am confident I know well Policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Your comment makes me unpleasant.--Reiro (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• you mean "Your comment makes me feel unpleasant." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC) p.s. my Google Translate fails spectacularly with Korean.

• I write English originally in there, not Korean.--Reiro (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Articles for deletion about Same article In Korean Wikipedia concludes to keep it[3], due to it has notability and inform. And they says according to WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, it is "what a reader would expect to find".--Reiro (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What happens on other language Wikipedias has no influence on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I know. I just give a reference.--Reiro (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep It's an interesting to list referencing notable people who have participated in the IBC for charity (...and notability) there are other pointless articles on wiki that could be removed that are not marked for possible removal. 5.198.122.169 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Third Break

• Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge it's definitely a plausible search term, but this page is basically a bloated WP:CFORK. Sourcing could definitely be improved, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Merge to IBC. Probably never should have been split. Juno (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This list is a notable article subject in its own right; searches for "People who have done the Ice Bucket Challenge" are exceptionally common, as well as for the parent article itself. Ithinkicahn (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

eight Hong Kong socks with nearly sequential IPs chime in with !votes in rapid succession; related commentary

Delete as an worthless list of unmaintainable trivia. 27.122.12.72 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Please delete the dumb list already. Can we just end the debate early? This fails meeting any criteria for Wikipedia. 116.193.159.38 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Delete Not important enough 116.193.159.46 (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC) I would like to voice my vote to delete. I do not think it is necessary to wait 5 more days to delete this, the votes are clearly stacking up in favor of removing this content. This is a bane on this encyclopedia. This type of thing belongs on a pop culture blog, and not an encyclopaedia. 116.193.159.37 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Delete - Failing to meet even the most basic of notabililty guide lines. 116.193.159.42 (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Delete It serves of no value on Wikipedia. 27.122.12.78 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Delete Has no context of its own without the main article. This unmaintainable list, has no place on Wikipedia. 116.193.159.50 (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Delete Not encyclopedic. It is simple this is not yahoo news 116.193.159.52 (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Comment Six Hong Kong IPs vote cast delete votes within a half hour of each other... Somebody wants this to be over with quickly.LM2000 (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Agreed that the !votes (6 of them as I type) from 116.193.159.* should be discounted. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Note: I see 8 Hong Kong IPs directly above -- 2 from 27.122.12.7*, and 6 from 116.193.159.*. All are Delete !votes. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC) My bad, you're right. The 27s and 116s are both from Hong Kong, so that's eight sock votes in a row.LM2000 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Jeez, they couldn't even make an attempt at sounding believable? Six nearly identical IP addresses voting in direct secession of one another — nothing suspicious about that. Kurtis (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Very notable subject. My only suggestion would be to add a smaller list of the most notable people that have participlated in the Ice Bucket Challenge article's section. Biglulu (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia and recentism. Sjö (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - when there were fewer participants, it was reasonable to list all the notable ones, but this has now reached the point where the list is too long and growing too rapidly to be manageable or of much use. I agree with the nominator that this has reached the point of being an indiscriminate list. A notable person's participation in the challenge can still be mentioned in their own article, but we don't need to maintain a list of everyone who's done it, and shouldn't be trying to do so. Robofish (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Relates to a very recent event that will not be useful three weeks from now. Similar to a list of people who are drunk in a bar. That would be easy to document by referencing the tweets and Instagram pictures, it would not be notable. Even if the people themselves are famous, their participation in the Ice Bucket Challenge is not. I just don't think that the list has any lasting value. Banjohunter (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. No lasting value of any kind except that of Most Ridiculous Article Ever on Wikipedia: regrouping here the indiscriminate and potentially limitless list of those famous people who had rather a bucket of cold water poured on their heads than pay 100 bucks to a charity is... both ludicrous and indecent. --Azurfrog (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if people would please stop misrepresenting this as "people who had rather a bucket of cold water poured on their heads than pay 100 bucks to a charity". All of the notable participants I've come across have donated. It's certainly not a one or the other thing -- this is an awareness-raising activity and a call to donate. That's how the foundation has raised $70 million in three weeks. So I'd say nearly everyone notable participating is donating. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed. Unless they specifically say they have , you have no evidence that every person on this list donated. I know some have clearly made sure to say they donated (like Neil Gaiman's this morning), but again, as pointed out in the article on the ALS challenge, some have simply been dumping water and avoiding the charity so we cannot assume that everyone has donated. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Softlavender: No problem, Softlavender: so let's restrict this list to those people who did donate, since this would be a welcome clarification. As it is, I am entitled to believe this is just a list of people preferring a bucket of cold water to a donation. Sad! --Azurfrog (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The list is of notable people who participated in the challenge, not how much they donated. If you really think that notable people who can afford to donate did not, I personally find that incredibly cynical and misanthropic. The challenge has raised $80 million in three weeks. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How much did they contribute? the minimum $10? the recommended $100? <sarcasm>WOW</sarcasm>. Those types of charitible donations are done all the time by average people, so it is super trivial. Now, if they poured water over their head and made what I would consider to be a reasonably donation that went beyond the "everyman" aspect that the challenge originally captured, like $10,000 or more, then that would be something to possibly document, but you'd need to site that first, and in the bulk of these, I'm not seeing any mention of the monetary amount they gave each time. Again, no one is trivializing the overall outcoming, but the documentation of this fine a detail is not WP's job per WP:IINFO. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to make a note that the page now has 646 references. Meatsgains (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly, as it shows that this list is both indiscriminate and potentially limitless. --Azurfrog (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

With at least half of them from social media sites (youtube, twitter, instagram, facebook). That's not appropriate sourcing for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY sources can be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source", per policy. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine to validate, but does nothing to show the notability of the action of the person getting dumped on with ice water. If this was based on a list compiled by a secondary source, that might be something, but compiling it ourselves is a problem. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I’d just like to point out that this article is over 130,000 bytes long, which is enough to justify a split per WP:SIZERULE. While sizerule applies less strongly to lists, this list is only going to get bigger and bigger in size as more and more of the 670,000 living people with articles participate or are discovered to have participated. In all likelihood, if this list is kept it is either going to become one of the most massive lists on Wikipedia or split off into multiple separate lists. While not alone justification for deletion, I feel that this demonstrates some inherent problems with the list. (Note: I've already voted). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That argument feeds the reason why this list is indiscriminate information. No one else in the world is attempting to document this (specifically, the who's who of who is doing this), and as such, engaging in original research and failing notability guidelines. We don't just include information because it is verifiable, we are to be summarizing external sources, and as nearly all external sources only highlight a few people, that's how we should approach that, making this list completely out of line for WP. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with this analysis. While a few people on this list have been covered by multiple reputable sources for there participation, the overwhelming majority have not. I supported a merge earlier on, but have since changed my vote to delete when I realized the inherent problems with this list. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Before the list was split from the main article a consensus was in place that participants could only be listed if a secondary source was available. It would be useful if that rule goes for the separate list as well.LM2000 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, as a useless collection of non-encyclopedic trivia and due to the fact that similar lists have been deleted for other memes/viral events which this essentially is.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a very notable and significant event that has gained wide coverage. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is reason enough to keep Ice Bucket Challenge, about the event. But the list of people that participated violates WP:IINFO. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete This list is trivial at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Trim/Merge While the subject itself is interesting, and I do think it would be nice to have one place to go to look for every notable person, I don't think WP is the place. I do agree that keeping a small list of uber-famous people in the main article would be a good idea. For clarity's sake, by uber-famous, I would define them as names known world-wide. People like George W. Bush, and Buzz Aldrin would definitely make that list, and rightfully so. But keeping a comprehensive list of all even moderately notable people is likely going too far. Speeddymon (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC) - Not a sockpuppet ;-)
• Delete It's a useless collection of non-encyclopedic trivia. For example, it is impossible to record all members of Mensa International. It is also ridiculous to have Samsung Galaxy S5 as a participant. --Good afternoon (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Good afternoon (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Delete since there are tens of thousands of pageviews each day, with 700+ references, meaning this article is useful to people, particularly to reporters who can use it to cross-check facts. I know pageview counts is not a valid criterion for deletion but it is a strong indication of usefulness. The topic is notable with numerous WP:RS, and having this list separate on a page can help keep the ALS Bucket Challenge article from expanding out of control. Whole article is getting out of control and is too difficult for us to police with numerous additions of Facebook and YouTube references; plus Masem's argument has merit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Usefulness is also not a reason we keep articles, and notability is not determined by the number of RS but the quality of the coverage they provide which in the case of considering the documentation of all people that have done the ASL, is not there (individuals, yes, group, no). --MASEM (t) 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Technically you are correct, but in practice, think of all those people who added names, who read the article, who want to see their names on this list, who use the list, who refer to it, who add names to it -- think of them as a HUGE constituency that you are battling with here. They say this list is notable. You are saying it is not, somewhat like Xerxes trying to battle the waves. It is not clear to me whether for a list to be notable, it has to be discussed in the media as a list; my sense is that most lists in Wikipedia do not conform to this requirement. But if it is a requirement in Wikipedia's rules that lists have to be notable as lists, then there are sources suggesting the long list, itself, is notable, such as this one saying "the long list of celebs", or this one which says "the two then rattle off a list of celebrity nominees". Notable subject, pop culture phenomenon, the ALS Bucket Challenge is notable, this is a subject directly related to that subject, and a useful (had to use that word again, sorry) way to keep both articles within limits.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Arguments about the effort going into the page and the number of pages is also an argument to avoid for deletion; we're looking at how this fits in with the fact we don't keep indiscriminate information. The fact that a large # of celebs have taken part should definitely not be lost, but the specifics of who's who that's done it to the level of resolution this page tries is not something shown notable by others (for one, they focusing on notable celebrities, while this list includes more people beyond that). And there is the issue that this article is getting far out of control, showing the problem with keeping within a limit - that's the first sign it is indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
        • You didn't address my point that there were sources indicating lists were notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I did - I pointed out that while "lots of celebrities participated" supports notability of the Ice Bucket Challenge, as they don't actually BOTHER to list the celebrities to any great degree shows that the exact details of that list is not notable. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Very weak keep or merge. As much as I think this article is worthless and should be deleted, I don't think it's an indiscriminate list if multiple reliable sources (even some as big as BBC, CNN, etc.) report on some of these people taking part. A large percentage of the unimportant crap with YouTube or Facebook as the source should be purged and leave only the most notable participants (ie George W. Bush, which gives a few thousand Google News results) and if that list can get small enough, it should be merged with the main article. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically everyone has done it. Thus the list serves no purpose. -Koppapa (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic material. A.aman (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: User has 5 contributions. --CrunchySkies (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a fad, and that makes the individual event of doing it trivial. The whole thing is quite notable, of course, but that doesn't mean that everyone who does it and is notable should get listed. That these individual events can be referenced (by something better than a YouTube link) is irrelevant--it's just part of the fad. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. This is trivial, and in any case should make a single sentence in the celebrity's main article. A short list could be added to the IBC article itself in-line. Having a list as a separate article would be like having a list on which celebrities are vegetarian, or Manchester United fans. It adds no valu to the encyclopaedia in my opinion. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that this list is unnecessary. Other similar articles such as Cinnamon challenge and Saltine cracker challenge do not have lists, nor should they. Zell Faze (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable subject which has resulted in almost $80 million donations to the ALS Association, whether it was the people who completed the challenge who donated money or not. Clearly, from the number of people who want to keep the article, edited the article, and search for the article, people do care about this information. It appears the people arguing for deletion simply don't care about the information for their own uses, but according to WP:CARES, "not caring does not always mean not notable." Even someone arguing for deletion said people should be able to use Google to find a list somewhere on the internet - but there isn't, and why can't Wikipedia be the one to support the list so charities and individuals can see how a social media campaign spread across all varieties of notorious people, whether they are actors, politicians, researchers or what. WP:PNJCS - Sure, maybe the list includes some kids that just want their names on Wikipedia, but when this event dies in a few months, editors can easily remove the non-notorious and clean up the article. I still think the information about which celebrities participated can continue to benefit the charity as interested parties look up who participated in the event and become inspired to donate or become involved in ALS research. Refer to WP:DEMOLISH, WP:IDL. Echennessy (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Even someone arguing for deletion said people should be able to use Google to find a list somewhere on the internet - but there isn't, and why can't Wikipedia be the one to support the list" - This would be original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to summarize sources and not create new material, period. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to "Ice Bucket Challenge" - This list is simply an extension of article Ice Bucket Challenge, and thus should either be merged or kept to the extent that it is properly referenced, with unreferenced material being deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to merge this article -- it's far too large. NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: PLEASE IGNORE ALL MERGE !VOTES BECAUSE THE ARTICLE IS FAR TOO LARGE TO MERGE. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply - If it is not possible to merge this article because of its size, that only implies the possibility of splitting the page somewhere down the road. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Unnecessary and also a never-ended list. I don' think we can have a complete list of IBC players.--Foamposite (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: User has <50 contributions, and this !vote was their first edit in 11 months. --CrunchySkies (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep This is quite a notable event, massive media coverage of it. This is a valid content fork from the main article, it too long to fit there. As long as the person got media coverage for doing it, then they are notable enough to be on the list. Dream Focus 14:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: Only Wikipedia could create this. Its essentially a fork of the challenge articles; inclusion requirements can be hashed out through the normal process.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Only Wikipedia could create this." is pretty much a nail in the coffin for deletion as that is a sign of original research. We should not be creating original material. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the coffin I'm thinking of has never been shut in the context of lists. List of animals with fraudulent diplomas.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that list has the same problems and if you look around, it is an example of the type of list that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. We should not be dealing in the trivia. That said, however, that there is definitely interest in other sources in explaining problems of colleges with lax standards or that are diploma mills that use the example of animal/pet degrees as an issue, so there is some justification for explaining some cases. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment After reading others' statements and looking over the article again, I concur that this list IS quite bloated, even if we got rid of all the poor referencing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fourth Break

• Comment This nomination is getting excessively long. Anyways, if you look at most of the Keep votes are: It's useful, I like it, it's interesting, Ice bucket challenge exists so this should, its well sourced, its popular has a lot of page views, its notable. Like someone said above merging would not be plausible because of the excessive size too. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. There are many notable fads that involve celebrities at some point. Imagine if we had, at the beginning of Twitter's popularity, begun a List of people with Twitter accounts. bd2412 T 18:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  Um, you're suggesting we'll eventually see 500 million ice bucket challengers? That would be quite a big list. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: This, although for a worthy cause, is a passing fad and this list is barely notable now, and will be less so the longer it grows. All 'lists' are of dubious quality if there is an article on the subject at hand. In this case, there is and the article is in no danger of being deleted. Please put this list out of its misery. Fylbecatulous talk 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm going to vote Keep, but I'm kind of conflicted. As someone who has worked very hard from the infancy of the Ice Bucket Challenge article I can tell you that merging would be a mistake. The article would become too long and cumbersome to easily read. This article grew out of a splinter of the original article and the latter is better because of that.--Deathawk (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• The reason why many feel it could be merged is the article has become increasingly bloated and much of it is rather poorly sourced. After cutting out all the bad sourcing, it would be more manageable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• More manageable, but still not manageable enough. Back before the list was first split from the main article, it was much shorter and more carefully sourced than it is now, but it still took up a large proportion of the page and interfered with editing the rest of the article. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there was a way to only include the participants that had the most notable ice bucket events, there might be reason to keep it. This would need to be elevated beyond just being in a third-party source, and more than just an article that is "Hey, look, X did the IBC". To compare, List of Internet phenomena is a list that requires a major, high quality RS to make note of the fact that the specific item is one that meets the guidelines. This prevents that list from becoming a second copy of Know Your Meme. If a similar inclusion criteria could be found here, I would be all for keeping this list. However, when I go through the sources, ignoring straight up YouTube links and the link, the bulk are "okay" RS sites but are aimed at a "Look at me" type fashion (TMZ, Daily Mail) or too tied to the industry or local they cover to be independent (for example, notable video game developers sourced to video game sources is not good enough, or a local paper reporting on a local celebrity doing it). I'm looking for things like the NYTimes or the BBC to report on these. But I don't think such a level can be set well at this article, and it will always be a challenge to rein in inclusion (compared to the Internet phenomena article that we're having very little problems with). Hence deletion still makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: A potentially very long list of people who don't have very much in common. The "Keep" rationales don't cut it IMO pbp 22:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't see any valid reason for deletion. WP:INDISCRIMINATE obviously doesn't apply since this list is restricted to people who have done the ice bucket challenge, an indiscriminate list of people would be one where people were randomly added. Also "not being encyclopedic" is not a valid reason for deletion either.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Indiscriminate applies to lists that have reasonable bounds, as this list has, even if there are inclusion requirements. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It has a list of things it refers to, this isn't one of them. This is not an indiscriminate list. Dream Focus 00:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes it is - as someone mentioned above, this is basically equilavent to a list of people with a Twitter account. The "act" of participating in the IBC is extremely trivial just as getting a social media account, and as such, it is a trivial indiscriminate grouping. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • As written there is nothing in WP:INDISCRIMINATE indicating that it would apply to lists with reasonable bounds, that seems the exact opposite of what indiscriminate is meant to address. And to state that a list of people with Twitter accounts would be basically synonymous with a list of people who have done the IBC is hard to take seriously.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Just because it's not explicitly written doesn't mean it doesn't apply; most that argue about the indiscriminate nature here are point out that the act of participating in this event is too trivial to be a significant defining factor, akin to setting up a Twitter account. We would never list out the latter, and as such would never do the same here just on the basis that we can source that the person participated. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
            • It isn't simply "not explicitly written" it is conspicuously absent. Also, reliable sources haven't written articles to the effect of "Look at how many celebrities are signed up on Twitter" or "Look at how many people have the letter a in their names", however, many articles by reliable sources have been written noting how many notable people have partaken in the ALS challenge. If participating in the ALS challenge is as trivial as having a Twitter, why don't we see any news stories informing us of occurrences along the lines of "Bill Gates and several others have created Twitter accounts"?AioftheStorm (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Has anyone noticed two very important things? Firstly, the sheer length of this article and the amount of names makes it much less useful, but more importantly, much less notable: the usefulness has mostly been reduced to finding certain names, as I can't imagine anyone seriously wanting to look through a large pile of names without Ctrl + F. Even then, it's much easier to search "bill gates ice challenge" on google and find the source directly with it. The notability suffers even more from the length (and this has probably been said before): this article might have been notable when it was much smaller. But now the list is so large that it's severely bloated and reduces the value of any notable names on the list. There's not just a few anymore, there's probably around 300 and counting, way beyond most other Wikipedia link articles. The second thing I'd like to point out is how the article has passed the point of sanity in terms of who's being added to the list. "Non-humans"? Why are Muppets and Sesame Street characters on the list? But more importantly, why is a smartphone on the list? It could be argued that the former mentioned characters may have some notability, but do you have any reason for a smartphone being on the list? Isn't this supposed to be a article about notable people who took the challenge? It's just nonsense now. For these reasons (plus other people's reasons in this discussion), I think this article should be deleted. Ajducks (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is also a deletion rationale not based on policy. Just because you cannot imagine people wanting to look through it(despite it being one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia) doesn't mean a topic should be deleted otherwise many of our obscure topics would be deleted. We have a policy on list notability WP:LISTN that nobody seems to be citing, probably because arguments about a list being too long aren't mentioned in that policy. And why shouldn't non-humans be listed? This is getting to the point of editors thinking a topic is silly and therefore not wanting it on Wikipedia rather than a topic violating a specific policy or guideline.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • LISTN only clears the case where the complete list itself is notable (such as list of US Presidents), and does not give any advice either direction for other types of lists because there is no clear consensus when and where they are kept. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @AioftheStorm I agree with Masem. This is probably the only list article on Wikipedia (categories not included) where names are formatted more like a phone directory than an actual list, and Wikipedia isn't a directory. Since there's no general consensus on lists, I'd like to compare List of Presidents of the United States with the article in question (List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants): there's a lot to notice in terms of notability. The List of US Presidents article is a well formatted list article. All the people listed on the article are relevant to the topic, have extra information to show notability, and (until the next election) it's a complete list that will not undergo major content changes. On the other hand, the ice bucket article is hardly formatted at all. There's no way of telling if the hundreds of names listed there are truly notable to the article, and it's a incomplete list, which means names could potentially be added forever as more people do the challenge, making the article more irrelevant, excessively large in file size, hard to read, and even more of a mess. As for the non-human category issue, the article is very disorganised as it is. I can't really say much on that, and as I said, the inclusion of Muppets and Sesame Street characters are arguable. But the smartphone is inexcusable. It is the only object in the whole list, not to mention from a specific company, Samsung, which makes it feel like an advertisement as there are many other phones with waterproof abilities which can take the challenge just the same. It would be more appropriate to add the ice bucket challenge information to the phone's article itself rather than the list. Also please note that page popularity is not a valid argument for keeping an article which may not be notable. I was just suggesting the most likely way people were using the article (by browser search function). Ajducks (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Comment: User Ajducks had 6 edits before contributing to this AfD, the first of which was last month. ---CrunchySkies (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Is this a replacement for a counter argument? I don't see the point of mentioning that. I have a lot more edits attributed to my IP, and I only recently created an account. Does that make my argument any less valid? Ajducks (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I am not confronting your argument at all, but merely making your apparent lack of contributions visible to the closing admin. Whatever conclusions they draw or don't draw from that aren't my business. Of course it doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument being made from your account, but perhaps affects the qualifications for making such an argument. Having almost no contributions is a fair point of note in a deletion discussion; if no one cared about this, it would be easier for people to create endless sockpuppets and sway results in their favor (I am not accusing you of this, but this is an example of one reason such points are important.) You didn't cast this !vote from your IP full of edits, so I'm not concerned with those... the sole contributions from your username, from which you are participating here, consist of blanking sections out of a single article. →CrunchySkies ❅ _{« talk ± gawk »} 06:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
              • That's fine, I realised after I replied that was probably why you commented on that. Ajducks (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't compare this list to the list of presidents, but rather would compare it to articles such as List of people from Kansas. This is by no means the "only list article on Wikipedia" like this. It is easy to tell if the names are notable by simply seeing if they have their own Wikipedia article which if they do establishes their notability.AioftheStorm (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • It's true that there are more appropriate types of list articles to compare the Ice Bucket list article with. However, an article listing people from a certain country still has a more limited scope than an article which has very relaxed requirements; the challenge itself takes less than a minute to do, but you can't change where you were born (refer to WP:SALAT). I actually think this article could be kept if the topic was more specific, like "List of unique Ice Bucket Challenge participants" (for people who performed the challenge in a different way or in different circumstances) which would address the potentially unlimited range and size of the current article. Either way, the article in it's current form should be changed in some way, to either reduce and address it's size issue or to remove it completely. (also, if establishing people's notability was as easy as checking they had a Wikipedia article, lists such as "List of names that begin with <letter>" would be deemed notable, as said below. As a note, there are articles like List of biblical names starting with A which have a more specific range and list the meanings alongside to the names) Ajducks (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and probably make a category. Nothing worth keeping by a long shot. RWCasinoKid (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of making this a category instead of a list. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 13:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, making it a category is a horrendous idea. When placing article X in category Y, we generally require that the article more or less explicitly shows that it indeed belongs to Y. The last thing we need is people going around thousands of articles and adding "X participated in the ice bucket challenge" just to add it to the category. It's a completely useless factoid in most biographies. Pichpich (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Bobherry talk 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Care to explain why? JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like it's keepable now, but I won't change my !vote because I've put a lot of work into this today. Now that an admin has semi-protected it for a week it'll be easier to keep it well-referenced. I think all of the YouTube and Facebook refs are gone now, and over the next few days I'll work to make sure that they don't sneak back in there and I'll be removing unsouced additions. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  See Talk:List_of_notable_Ice_Bucket_Challenge_participants#WP:SELFSOURCE.3F. You need to stop removing references to the official YouTube and Facebook accounts of the person in question. Dream Focus 03:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus: Ok, I apologize, it just seemed that most people didn't want Facebook or YouTube refs, I personally thought they were ok, but if it meant this wouldn't get deleted, I just went along. My thinking the official accounts were ok to cite were from my common sense, I actually hadn't heard of WP:SELFSOURCE. Well, you learn a new thing everyday! :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The majority that chimed in on this issue on this AfD have said they are against using primary sources, and when this list was part of the main Ice Bucket Challenge article the consensus was that a secondary source was needed for inclusion. I personally agree with AmaryllisGardener's changes.LM2000 (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Two references can be given then, one showing the person's activity is notable because it got coverage, and the other shows where they did it at for those who want to see it. Dream Focus 05:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Spot checking, 90% of the references on this list after you remove the SPS (Youtube/facebook links) are sources that say "Hey, look at this person do it". This is not a source of notability as that is not significant coverage of the event. (Contrast: this is better than average in actually saying a bit about the specific version of the challenge). unless you can trim the list to this small percentage, this still is indiscriminate inclusion. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't change reality. It is not an indiscriminate list. Just because there isn't always a lot of information to write about the person, doesn't make any difference at all. Reliable sources felt it notable enough to mention, so that makes it notable enough to be on a list article. We're not making an individual article page for each person's ice bucket event. Dream Focus 06:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• An indiscriminate list can be one where there is an inclusion metric but it is so diffuse that the resulting list remains unmanageable. For example, "List of people with "a" in their names". This is a case where because the act of participating is so simple and the sourcing requirements extremely weak, that the resulting list is also unmanageable and thus indiscriminate, akin to listing all people who have Twitter accounts. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The list *is* manageable, just look at the article. Simply being large does not make something unmanageable, and being unmanageable is not related to being indiscriminate. If an article can be fixed through normal editing then it is not a candidate for deletion.AioftheStorm (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep because the list is limited to notable individuals only thus not indiscriminate; entries are sourced; list is too long to merge to the main article; better as a "list of" than category because of citations. -- GreenC 04:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: Its so obvious, I don't know why there is even a discussion. We're over 500 sources, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to google this stuff. If you don't like a particular source for whatever reason, spend a minute to find a new one and edit it in. The most time consuming part of that is making the edit into such a huge article. This may be a contemporary fad, we expect it to go away, but WP:NTEMP tells us that a passing fad is not temporary for our reporting of it. Clearly, clearly it achieves WP:GNG now and deserves to stay. That said, the article certainly needs cleanup. Lets make it better. I suggest editors might better spend their time and editing skills to help clean it up, rather than spending your time complaining about it. Trackinfo (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep a quite long list (ie unmergeable), all of bluelinks, in which every entry is referenced? it sounds to me an obvious keep. It just requires cleanup of the items actually sourced just to primary sources. Cavarrone 08:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Fifth Break

• NOTE to closing admin: If this is a Delete consensus, I suggest userfying. This at least retains the information for the person(s) who have put a lot of effort into it. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. At the end of the day, this is my biggest concern... not often is an AfD article actively edited so intensely by so many editors. No matter what else happens, this effort should at least be preserved somehow on the project space for posterity... please see to that. If this winds up "Delete", I think the best way to handle it would be either to Userfy the content, or change the article into a protected redirect to Ice Bucket Challenge -- in either event, keeping edit history intact of course. I haven't even worked on the article much, but if no one closer to the situation wants this on their Userspace, I'll volunteer mine. --CrunchySkies (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment WP:MERCY, WP:EFFORT, and WP:LOSE aren't very convincing arguments for AFD's as they don't explain the value of keeping an article. If you'd like to retain the information, I suggest storing in sandbox or a word processing document or something. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how there will be any consensus to delete. I count about the same number of keeps and deletes at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

AFDs are not vote counting processes, it is based on the policy arguments presented. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that. Except what happens when arguments are evenly stacked? Do you think there is a consensus to delete? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

While that should be the case in practice it never is. An admin will either delete or keep this depending on whether they like or dislike the topic, or it will be closed as no-consensus because there is a roughly even "vote".AioftheStorm (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep does not fit WP:INDISCRIMINATE and meets WP:FORK as being too big to be merged back into the main article. KonveyorBelt 16:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - I came here expecting half the list to be a huge mess, re-linked and unsourced .... But the entire list is the exact opposite - It's tidyish, Blue linked, and each and every participant listed is sourced, I see no reason to delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• delete per WP:SALAT. So many people have done this now that it has ceased to be distinctive; the fact that it can be sourced is immaterial. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I have already voted, but I am also in favor of a redirect with history to Ice Bucket Challenge, IFF the article cannot be kept nor merged. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete At first I thought it was interesting to have such a list and I contributed to the page but I didn't believe so many people would do it. Now pretty much every celebrity has done it as others pointed out and so there's no merit in being listed anymore and thus the existence of the list itself has become useless. Another website that is not an 'encyclopedia' could start their own list. Also, keeping the most notable people on the main article is a risk because it would certainly incite other users to add new names so if we go for that solution then we'll have to establish strong criteria. --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. The zenith of trivial recentism; fairly indiscriminate; I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value. Neutrality^talk 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete This is an indiscriminate list of no encyclopedic value; a year from now the only one anyone will remember is Old Spice Guy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Remember back in '14 when that Old Spice Guy dumped iced water over his head?" 162.254.149.35 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I hadn't even heard that the Old Spice Guy had participated. Either way, it's more about proving the overwhelming critical mass of celebrities participating. This will be studied in fundraising and social media post-secondary courses for years, maybe even by sociology courses. It's less about the list, and more about the scale of the list, to help people understand the scale of the participation. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The number of people, and particularly anyone with celebrity status (including athletes, politicians, etc.) can be documents by sources that mention the estimated partipation size, but you don't need to list out all the celebrities that participated to show that. Social media sources like Twitter and Instagram are important, but that's shown by numbers of big time users, not a list of those users. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • That's why describing the scale on Ice Bucket Challenge works just fine. Also, Old Spice Guy! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Recentism, trivia, no lasting encyclopedic value. The challenge itself, and the people on the list, are all obviously notable, but I don't see how that alone justifies the list's existence. The fact that it's for a good cause isn't a reason to keep it either. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. First comment, Merge is simply a non-starter, I've been involved in efforts to break lists out into their own articles that are half this size. Second, in regards to non-notable people being here, this *should* be limited to people who have their own article (not sure on "all members of group have, so include group"). Third, The issue with Primary sources to Youtube is a real one, and a trim down to those with secondary sources might be useful, but even *that* I believe would leave a list more than long enough for an article.Naraht (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - getting to be just as trivial as a list of celebrities who breathe air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.230.169 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - trivia, not encyclopedic Sswitcher (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment just throwing a fact out there for everyone, 0 of the winners at the 86th Academy Awards are on this list. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nor any Wikipedia founders. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Are you sure? Have you checked all of the usual "reliable" sources -- like Jimmy's Facebook, Instagram, MySpace and Twitter pages? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: He's not on this list. Martinevans123 never said that he didn't do it, he just said that he wasn't on this list. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps you misunderstood my ironic comment regarding reliable sources. I have now added scare quotes to the word "reliable" in my comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: I see. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• • But from the Academy Awards before that, the 85th, Ben Affleck has, Christoph Waltz has, Anne Hathaway has, and Curfew short star Fatima Ptacek has. Winners from that year challenged by other celebrities include Quentin Taratino, George Clooney, Ang Lee, and Daniel Day-Lewis. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Enough celebrities have taken the Ice Bucket Challenge at this point that the list is far too long and indiscriminate, and taking the Ice Bucket Challenge isn't a special or exclusive criterion for a list in itself given its popularity. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate listcruft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. The corresponding article on Chinese wiki has already been deleted. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• I Don't Like It but I'm OK with other people looking at it. Lots seem to like it. Keep, I guess. But delete after the hoopla dies down. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk: Notability is not temporary. It's either notable or not notable. There is no "notable now but not notable later". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I know this. I'm not saying it's notable now, just that deleting it now would piss people off. Once it isn't cool anymore, they won't mind. The illusion of notability is temporary. There's less harm in leaving a poor article up for a while. It's not exactly slanderous or anything, just a bit stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This actually makes perfect sense to me. If there's no consensus to delete now, it might be worth revisiting the issue in six months or a year. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Retain this. Ali Fazal (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  @Alifazal: Want to give a reason? AfD is not a vote. I suggest you read this. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Although the list is referenced and the challenge itself is notable, we could make millions of lists of things that a very large number of people have done. For example, someone could create List of people that have visited the United States – this could be extremely well referenced and the subject (Tourism in the United States) is also notable. However, the list is utterly pointless and trivial. Number 57 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This is a trivial list. It provides very little information that a category would not. Chillum 15:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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.