Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) at 08:27, 24 February 2022 (Fix misnested tag lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Juggernaut Bitch

Is this notable? You be the judge. Gets lots of Google hits.(Has redirects too) DJ Clayworth 03:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it is a important part of internet culture, something does not need to be clever and artistic to be on wikipedia, there are articles on cumshots, various juvenile sexual acts, and much more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.135.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is notable. Its probably the most popular internet clip at this time. And its a very well written article. --Pal5017 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not the "most popular internet clip at this time," at best it is one of hundreds of currently popular clips. We deleted the Prime Number Shitting Bear as nonnotable, and small chance that the Juggernaut Bitch, clever and artistic as it is, will have the same staying power. Unless this gets picked up somewhere and becomes a true phenomenon, it should go. NTK 05:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone comes up with some sources. ( I really want to keep it, along with a lot of things, but we are trying to be an encyclopedia and that pesky WP:V et al get in the way of things like this. ) Also, I'm not sure I saw the same video that NTK did if he thinks it is clever or artistic. Kotepho 06:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "clever and artistic as it is," however much that is. ;-) It is not a great work of art, it is somewhat offensive and juvenile, but it clearly took either a good bit of work or some very fast-on-the feet improv. Obviously a lot of people find it funny. NTK 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dunno, I must be a little bit crazy, but who the heck are we to judge what is "artistic" and/or "clever"? If you think the humor is lowbrow or juvenile or "offensive" that's your opinion. The humor is largely identical to the types of humor found in Chappelle's Show, for example, and the video is WILDLY popular in the gaming community. I suppose the standup of, say, George Carlin is also not "clever" and "artistic," then? I also don't understand this "we're trying to be an encyclopedia" stuff. Wikipedia is never going to be an encyclopedia along the lines of Britannica, that's just the nature of the beast. And if we feel we need to live up to that standard of stick-in-the-assness, why have we not deleted every ten thousand word otaku article on Final Fantasy tertiary characters or on Warhammer 40,000 races? This is merely and completely a judgment call on the part of people who feel that the subject matter of this article isn't "highbrow" enough for wikipedia. What an irony. The Juggernaut Bitch article is well written (I know because I wrote it), and it accomplishes the rare feat of being complementary to the humor of its own subject matter. I'm so sick of the antiseptic cast that wikipedians seem to feel we need to throw onto every single article. What makes something really an encyclopedia is that the articles are not only informative, but interesting. Anyway, enough tirade. I think this is a keeper, unless we're running out of hard drive space of Wiki servers. RiseAbove 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hard drives are cheap. That being said, this article is severly lacking in the verifiability department. Have any reliable sources covered this video? Also FWIW I laughed quite a bit watching the video. Kotepho 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns, but what "sources" do we really need? This is a short film, created by fans. You can easily verify everything in the article by simply watching the film, which is linked on the page. Also, I'm still confused as to why this page has been singled out, as opposed to literally thousands of pages on Wikipedia that deal with subject matter much less widespread than The Juggernaut Bitch video (again, how many people really care about the vital statistics and motivations of Sephiroth, the main bad guy from Final Fantasy VII? And yet he has a frickin' saga for his page... Again, I call discrimination here, there seems to be a bias against this article because of the tone and language of the subject matter. RiseAbove 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you could source that from any number of game guides that are published. Also, I'm quite sure that FF7 is notable and will be remembered years from now. Kotepho 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Marvel comics (and their parodies) won't be? And while you tell me where you could find sources (i.e. games manuals) for Warhammer and FF7, you don't explain why this is relevant to this particular article; an article that concerns a subject matter not susceptible to being sourced. It's kind of like accusing a page on a fantasy novel for not having sources because there are no books of commentary written about that novel.RiseAbove 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, wikipedia does not strive to be a primary source. Kotepho 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responsible for it, sizzlechest. Got something you'd like to say to me? RiseAbove 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What kind of wikipedia would this be if you don't have every information. This is by far the best written article describing the video, the humor, and it's viral pop culture. To have this page is an Honor to me for I created the juggernaut bitch. Is it historical? maybe. The page has even been googled alot since posted. It is well written to my suprise and might just get better as time goes by. It's a Keeper. STop tryin to stop my Juggernaut Bitch.

April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

  • Keep What kind of wikipedia would this be if you don't have every information. This is by far the best written article describing the video, the humor, and it's viral pop culture. To have this page is an Honor to me for I created the juggernaut bitch. Is it historical? maybe. The page has even been googled alot since posted. It is well written to my suprise and might just get better as time goes by. It's a Keeper. STop tryin to stop my Juggernaut Bitch.

April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)

  • Keep What makes Wikipedia cool is NOT the fact that it is a professionally monitored encyclopedia, but rather that you can find things here that other encyclopedias would not even consider. I feel that Wikipedia is the "free thinkers" encyclopedia and I would be disappointed if 'The Juggernaut Bitch' was deleted. This clip is gaining a huge cult following, and I would argue that it's even more American than apple pie! It simply DOES EXIST, so why not catalog it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheJuggernaut (talk • contribs)
I agree one hundred percent. RiseAbove 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Melchoir 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it unverifiable? Non notable perhaps, but unverifiable just doesnt make sense to me. Its a video, and theres a link to it, so doesnt that prove that it exist, and thus prove verifiability?--Pal5017 05:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With 200k Google hits this easily passes any bar of notability.  Grue  21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Brian G. Crawford 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep, with a vengeance. What “sources” are required beyond the video itself? Nominating this page for deletion is an unfair and irrational attack. The only motivation I can see for the “debate” here is the video’s trespass upon the humorless and politically correct sensibilities of the self-consciously high-minded. Wikipedia is populated by hundreds of ludicrous pages authored by pathologically obsessed fans of some inane enclave of gaming or popular culture (I think more pages are devoted to Final Fantasy minutiae than are afforded the plays of Shakespeare). These pages seem to survive the cut through pure teflon blandness, but when the subject involves humor of a highly vulgar (though hardly immature) color, out come the censors, knives sharpened, to cleave us all to some imagined standard of lofty gentility. What it comes down to is, Wikipedia functions as a repository of knowledge. This page provides entertaining, yet NPOV, description of an extremely popular internet video that does, in fact, exist. I see no reason this fact should be expunged from the social record, especially since precedents have now established that Wiki has plenty of tolerance for internet memes (and for countless subjects far more asinine than this page.) Wiki articles are not guesses as to what future historians might find of interest; they are written for the benefit of people today. And the fact that the page enjoys Google hits and redirects suggests that people are finding use for it. Spotlessmind
I particularlly like this article and I think it is pretty good. I just think it is better suited for Everything2 than something that is trying to be an encyclopedia. Kotepho 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spotlessmind, and I would like to say further that his argument is not only well reasoned, but also well written. Why indeed, are some things designated "acceptable" for Wikipedia, and others, of seemingly the exact same pedigree, deemed only acceptable for Everything2? Kudos to you, SpotlessMind. RiseAbove 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is where our policies such as verifiability and no original research come in. Kotepho 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So... what if I were to write a few articles commenting on the video? If we then cited them in the page, would it suddenly and magically transmogrify into a page worthy of being on wikipedia? This no original research and citing sources stuff seems arbitrary and easily manipulated. And, regardless of the policies of wikipedia, the fact remains that MANY people use it as a "first stop" for information, especially on subjects like this. Are we going to actively destroy an informative article that could be helpful and interesting merely because it does not follow the letter of the law? If we are, that's a waste and a low down dirty shame. RiseAbove 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pretty much, yes, we will. Perhaps instead of numerous impassioned pleas for Wikipedia official policy to be ignored in this case (more or less because, well, you wrote the article and you like the subject matter), you could devote those energies to verification of the video's notability. Many people do use Wikipedia as a first stop for information, and they trust Wikipedia's usefulness for that because there are policies to trim out ephemeral, self-promotional fancruft. RGTraynor 14:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have abandoned common sense in favor of obdurate and irrational adherence to bureaucratic stipulations. I submit the following:
Verifiability- Video is linked at bottom of page. Video exists. Quotes listed on page are reproduced as heard in video. Verification complete.
Notability- 200,000 hits within 2 weeks. Clearly popular. Do you, then, presume to decide what is “notable” for the rest of us, over the actual usage practices of the people whom Wikipedia serves?
I once ran up 5,000 hits in a single hour on my personal website just to see if I could do it. Your own site's counter on how many hits you claim to have isn't in of itself proof.
Considering the page achieved significant hits before this ridiculous controversy broke out, Occam's razor would suggest that the hits were acquired legitimately, rather than being the result of an hour-long coordinated effort by a 40 man team hitting refresh to drive up the hits on a Wiki page for absolutely no reason. Spotlessmind
Also, please provide some evidence of RiseAbove's connection to the video to support your claim of self-promotion. He has never suggested he was involved in the video's production. And further, please provide the address of the company from which you mail ordered your magic crystal ball, so I can verify the ephemeral nature of this video. Spotlessmind
Spotlessmind, you're my hero. Also, for the record, the video has been viewed close to 2 MILLION times on YouTube. That's not counting Google Video, and every other video site on the net. Clearly notable. Clearly verifiable. And, by the way, anybody who "ran up 5,000 hits in a single hour on [his] personal website just to see if [he] could do it" is somebody who's rational judgment should be questioned, to say the least. What did you do, just keep hitting reload 5,000 times in a row? WTF? RiseAbove 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. — ciphergoth 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest providing an argument next time, rather than a meaningless appeal to ridicule. It is just as obvious to those of us who oppose you that it should be kept. Spotlessmind
  • Comment: Speaking of verification, this talk page is obviously Savethejuggernaut's first edit, and Spotlessmind has made four other contributions in a year. RGTraynor 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that make any of their arguments any more or less true? Again, this comment is further evidence that you and those like you are motivated solely by emotion and bias, and not on logic or empiricism. That ain't the way to run an encyclopedia. Also, I noticed you haven't responded to my previous citations about YouTube or your 5,000 clicks on your own website. Can I assume you're conceding those points? RiseAbove 21:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Spotlessmind has made four other contributions in a year." That clears up the issue of whether you can count. But I'm interested to know what relevance this has to your argument. Spotlessmind
Wow. I guess I didn't know that if Zybergoat hadn't heard of it, it wasn't notable. Except... that lots of people not named Zybergoat have heard of it. RiseAbove 00:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't adding that to say it's the reason for my vote. Not every little thing on the Internet deserves its own page in WP. Far more popular memes haven't netted a notice on WP, and I can't see why this should. But thanks for the borderline personal attack. It's well-appreciated. --Zybergoat 02:57, 5 April 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Juggernaut_Bitch&oldid=1073734119"