Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube fame

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube fame

Bringing this to AfD after a lengthy discussion at the article's talkpage. First of all, the title of this article is a neologism: while the words "youtube" and "fame" come up next to each other a lot in a Google search, that doesn't mean it's a new proper noun; it's just a common phrase, like "birthday party". So even if this were kept, it should be moved to a more general term like "internet fame" or "internet celebrity", and not be youtube-specific. But I, and several others at the talk page, think all the content here can be moved into related articles such as viral video or List of internet phenomena#People (given that most of this article is just a list of examples anyway). While the nominator claims that the article has unique information that can't be merged to those other articles, I don't see what that information is. More input is needed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism of a topic already well covered by other articles, such as viral video, which the term could redirect to (or just plain YouTube for that matter). DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, although I don't think this is even a term. Redirect to YouTube, but rescue anything useful and put it in viral video. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Google search [1], [2] and potential wikilinks [3] indicate this article is appropriate and needed. A rename or move doesn't require an AfD. I'm going to call for UN intervention and blue helmetted Dutch special forces to defend this new entry from the deletionist forces. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said in my nom statement, abundance of ghits doesn't prove that this is a "new word" rather than just a common phrase. "Pepperoni pizza" gets way more ghits than "youtube fame" ([4][5], compare *29,400 to 5,980 without quotes, 104 to 96 with quotes—and that's google news, not google web), but it's still a redirect. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you have this entry redirect? Pepperoni pizza is one type of pizza. YouTube fame doesn't seem a clear type of anything, but if there were an article on "Internet fame", I suppose it could be merged there. Of course merges don't require AfDs. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merges and redirects don't require AfD, but they require a consensus that the article itself does not belong. Since there was no consensus at the talk page, I had no choice but to bring it here. If consensus here is to delete, we can implement that by redirecting or merging, which in this case is basically the same as deleting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Viral video or List of Internet phenomena. Dlabtot (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Internet celebrity which currently redirects to List of Internet phenomena. The phrase "YouTube fame" is like calling facial tissue Kleenex. Fame from the internet is a notable concept, but should be housed at a generic location.--kelapstick (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter that facial tissue and Kleenex are two different articles? Should square milk jug be merged to milk jug? When will it end? Is nothing sacred? What? Where are all these voices coming from??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kleenex is a company, facial tissue is a product made by many different companies. Square milk jug specifically was the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, and is therefore notable independently of milk jug. YouTube fame can be a generic term for someone who rose to fame via some form of internet video sharing/viral video, not necessarily YouTube, the end result is them being an internet celebrity. And nothing is sacred and it will never end :D--kelapstick (talk)

Keep I am always inclined to keep articles. Just because a few editors aren't interested in a topic doesn't mean that the article has no merit. I can see mass potential in this article. No need to delete at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism, coatrack. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- Even I was surpirised by the media coverage, Google News Results and Wikilinks. As far as a move to internet fame, what else on the internet even comes close to comparing with the attention meritted through Youtube? A once in a blue moon blog that... no; and even that isn't attributed to nearly any one person. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my response to ChildofMidnight above regarding the meaninglessness of ghits. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, content fork, original research, synth, no reliable sources that establish this as an encyclopedic topic... I'm sure i could come up with a few more if i put my back into it, but that seems sufficient.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's wahat I'm talking about; why doesn't anybody improve the article at hand? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is just concerned with the title and suggests moving the content elsewhere. This is move/merger not deletion. I favour merger with Internet celebrity as suggested above and shall revive that article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the existence of List of YouTube celebrities, since it wasn't mentioned previously. --Raijinili (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So do you think the content of this article could be merged there, with the intro of this article going into the intro of that list? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. The article in question also talks about people who try to get famous on Youtube, so it wouldn't be an actual merge. Split-merge into both the celebrities article and the Youtube article is a possibility. --Raijinili (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or Criticism of YouTube? After all, it's all negativity on that page. --Raijinili (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Dutch bluehelmets are not going to come out for this AfD, especially since, duh, they can't smoke weed here, and there's no extra pay for entering a danger zone. But "YouTube fame" seems to me to be more than a random pairing of words; the plethora of hits in Google News (I don't care for the regular Google web search) has convinced me that this is a concept of sorts (though <insert deity>! I wish it wasn't). CoM, Daniel Christensen, where's that stash of Northern Cali at? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said above, "pepperoni pizza" gets more google news hits than this does, but that doesn't mean it's a noteworthy concept worth writing an article about... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I saw you said that. I don't care for Google hits; Google News is much more relevant--and there you get 103, and I get 149. Moreover, the hits in Google News are often in reliable resources and clearly, in my opinion, establish the term as a "YouTube fame." Now, what does pepperoni pizza have to do with any of this? Drmies (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're confused; I am talking about Google News hits, not google hits. And I got 29,000. The link is above (#4). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies: I'm comparing apples with pears--that's "pepperoni pizza" for all dates, 29,000 hits; "youtube fame" for all dates, 149 hits. Still, how does that apply here? I don't see how "YouTube fame" is discussed as just a subset of "viral video" the way "pepperoni pizza" is a kind of pizza. For starters, "viral video" refers to the spreading of a video; "YouTube fame" refers to the effect of YouTube exposure. You'll also see, in your Google News hits, that "pepperoni pizza" delivers mainly mention of pepperoni pizza, whereas the YouTube hits talk about the phenomenon itself. That's notability. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Neologism, but notable one with enough sources to demonstrate notability. The term has been used in a number of places and by a number of reputable organizations. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask where you have seen it? I spent a lot of time searching for it, and all I could find is examples of the two words used together, but not coined as an actual neologism. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to viral video. SunCreator (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references actually are about the phrase itself, they just use the phrase. Therefore, if anything I would suggest an entry in Wiktionary, rather than here. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What is the purpose of Wikipedia if only strict Bitannica-like ancient information is allowed. Isn't this supposed to be a little bit liberal? Isn't the whole idea of Wikipedia to stay up-to-date and even a little controversial? 192.156.234.170 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.