Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interweb medley

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 does not assert notability per WP:WEB, lack external media references to topic (i.e., WP:V --Madchester 17:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interweb medley

edit

This appears to be a non-notable, not-yet-web-phenomenon. It gets a mere 169 Google hits (as of 06:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)). It appears to fail Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day in principle (if "things made up on the web one day" is equivalent, and I think it is). The article may not be promotion as the article creator could as easily be a fan as the song's creator, but it sets off my promotion-radar nonetheless. It should be deleted for non-notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, you lost me upon following that link when it said that deletionists need to get a life. That's not a philosophy, that's combat. RGTraynor 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I missed that part. My intent wasn't to insult you or anyone else - only to point you towards what I think is a good overview of the general philosophy to "when in doubt, keep." No combat from me. --AStanhope 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think you're reading too much into the "Inclusionists" article. The article is about the philosophy of Wikipedia inclusionists, and while it does illuminate the differences between inclusionists' and exclusionists' philosophies, it doesn't take sides and certainly doesn't stoop to insults. Luvcraft 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Any insults on my part come from me alone and have nothing to do with whether or not I believe the inclusionist creed. As for that creed, my point is that if an article has already been created, is accurate and truthful and doesn't harm or liable anyone, why not let it stay? Note: When I went to the Wikipedia (my primary general information source) after seeing the BoingBoing post and entered "Interweb medley" into the search dialog, not only was no article returned, the standard Wikipedia plea for the user to CREATE an article if it doesn't exist was displayed. I chose to follow that invitation to create the article. As a community, we should err on the side of inclusion - else that message wouldn't appear. --AStanhope 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was a response to RGTraynor's comment, not to yours. This nesting is getting confusing! :) Luvcraft 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was it on BoingBoing, then it got linked to other place. --Sirkowski 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew it was linked on BoingBoing. I just don't think being linked by BoingBoing is enough to make it notable by Wikipedia's standards: this BoingBoing article about a wifi router doesn't mean it merits its own Wikipedia article. Most bona-fide internet phenomena don't get Wikipedia articles because they're passing things or just don't get big enough. This isn't even yet an internet phenomenon, and any notability that it currently has is "instant" notability by borrowing from existing notable internet phenomena. That Cory Doctorow liked it doesn't make it any more notable. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: user's 4th edit. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No more obtrusive than articles on albums from obscure artists. The criteria cited above for article deletion, e.g. number of google hits, should not necessarily be taken into account as the song is new. The main reason for my vote: the article combines through linking many other quality articles. If the article in question is eventually removed, the original author should add info on the "Interweb medley" to the respective song articles. RFenno 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Clearly we differ in the importance of notability in making decisions such as this one. I have laid out the reasoning behind my vote. It takes all kinds.... RFenno 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The song, if not at least notable, has the potential to become notable. Besides, it's well executed and catchy.--80.42.151.164 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, the first-time user and anon shills aren't mine! hehe --AStanhope 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The memes themselves are notable, a list of the memes might be notable, but a song about the memes, not yet having notoriety itself, does not warrant its own article. --Mattarata 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I beg to differ. Being linked by BoingBoing and it's inclusion of internet memes is enough to make it notable by Wikipedia's standards. Note: this user has 48 edits.Bryce byerley 02:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Getting linked from BoingBoing doesn't make something notable in and of itself, and a link from BoingBoing is the only thing going for this song as far as notability is concerned. Neither the notability of the constituent parts nor the imagined potential for the medley to become notable are of any relevance whatsoever. N6 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reason as Mattarata. How many of you heard about this song before this article? I know I didn't. Taboo Tongue 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In two more days, the Google hits are up to 213 (with extras omitted; 16,300 without omission); seems to be growing. And I'll save you the trouble, user edits count is 120. I go in waves, you see...--Bltpdx 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 44 more hits in two days? Gosh. At this rate it'll only take two or three years to become merely insignificant in terms of Internet memes, as opposed to completely off the radar screen. If it had added four thousand new hits in two days, that would be something. RGTraynor 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I remember why I don't get involved in these discussions. Can you point me to the article which backs up your contentions about hit-count requirements?--Bltpdx 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment RGTraynor: Is sarcasm/mockery really appropriate for somebody who posts their opinion here? Have you lost sight of what we are doing here? --AStanhope 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The vanity article you wrote about your grandfather, Claude Vermette, only gets 143 hits in Google - the first of which is the article here on Wikipedia. Hardly seems notable, especially prior to your creating the article. Will you be proposing deletion for that article as well? By your standards it should have been deleted long ago. The inclusionist in me, however, says that since it does no harm, your article should stay. --AStanhope 01:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be taking this personally and trying to make this personal. Please note that nobody owns articles and editors should not try to exert power over them as if they did. You are welcome to nominate Claude Vermette for deletion so that the community can discuss whether it should be deleted or kept. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No - I am genuinely an inclusionist. I do not want to see the vanity article you wrote about your grandfather deleted. If you were to nominate it for deletion, I would vote Keep. --AStanhope 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Inclusionism is only one philosophy, not the only philosophy. Using inclusionist arguments will only sway inclusionists, who, presumably, would have voted keep before hearing such arguments. Unless you have anything new and policy-based to offer, I'd suggest you take a breath and let the process play out. If enough people agree with you (or you have new arguments that are based on policy) the article will be kept. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think that the right thing for you to do at this point would be to withdraw this deletion request. You seem to feel very strongly about having this article deleted, however the reasons you have stated apply equally to the vanity article you've written about your grandfather and proudly displayed on your User page. One must conclude that you have other unstated reasons to seek the deletion of this article. I do not pretend to understand this. Why not withdraw the deletion request for now so that you may spend some time deciding whether or not this article is a legitimate intended target for your aggression? If, in time, you decide that it is, by all means renominate it for deletion. I would hope, however, that some time spent looking within yourself will shed some light on your real motivations. --AStanhope 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As I said, nobody owns articles. This AfD isn't "mine", and judging by the response to this so far there are those who would have nominated it in my place had I not. Not only would withdrawing it be disruptive, but I have no authority to do so. (See "not mine".) Furthermore, impuning the motivations of another editor with whom you disagree is an ad hominem fallacy. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Like this? "The article may not be promotion as the article creator could as easily be a fan as the song's creator, but it sets off my promotion-radar nonetheless." --AStanhope 03:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • As that's a comment on the merits of the article ("if it walks and quacks like advertising, it's probably advertising") and not an attempt to discredit someone's arguments by attacking them personally, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am getting 12000+ Google hits for interweb medley and 14000+ hits for "interweb medley". Are you sure that you spelled it correctly when you searched? I know nothing about songwriting and recording but I doubt this creation was only a day start to finish - and since it utilized some sort of recording technology, I doubt it took place at a school. The "day" test is specious anyway, particularly with art or pop-culture or news events. Arbitrarily declaring the worth of something based on an uninformed third party's guess at how long it took is a yardstick for nothing. Some of the greatest artistic achievements in the world took less than a day... Some of the most narcissistic and lame took months or years. You get the point. I hope that nobody is still under the impression that I am the song's creator or have any connection with the song. I am a 36 year old parent and Wikipedia addict with at least 1600 edits made over the course of 20 months (the counter seems to be stuck at 1616 for me - I don't understand why). --AStanhope 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am a first-time editor AND a friend of the original author, which twin facts I understand would normally render my opinion rather meaningless. However, I am supremely confident that the raw power of my argument will prove impossible to ignore. Behold: There is a Wikipedia article for each of the songs in the Interweb medley, save one. Is a Wikipedia user who comes to read about Badger Badger Badger not ill-served if she comes away without the knowledge that Badger Badger Badger has been collected into the Interweb medley? RaulGroom 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone here read WP:MEME (which was rejected as a proposal), or WP:WEB/WP:MUSIC both of which cover this subject fairly well? Testing through these guidelines fail to produce any significant support for the article. WP:WEB would support the article if it were to gain additional notability through an additional 1 or 2 media outlets other than boing boing. WP:MUSIC would seem to support converting the article into one based on the composer, should the song/composer become notable. I retain my delete vote above. Additionally I think both Saxifrage and AStanhope need to refrain from posting comments here unless additional questions are posed directly to them, they can present additional evidence, or the article is significantly modified. --Mattarata 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interweb_medley&oldid=1071551124"