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. I'm closing this a few hours early. The debate is already 139KB long, one of the longest and craziest debates I seen, and the results seem rather obvious even though I don't agree with an article nither. I watchlisted this for a couple of days now, and a good 75% of the votes aren't valid, mainly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE without a reason and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with comments like if it's kept, wikipedia is going to be a joke. Another delete comment that I saw is that there was no reliable sources, but there is several non-trivial ones, from reliable websides and alot of international coverage that sadly makes the fails WP:BIO agruements moot. With the few that are still valid, it's sad to say it's mainly in the keep side with Irishjp and 64.190.140.138 as the most valid in the delete side. It can be renominated for deletion in a few months if he's no longer in the news, as WP:BLP1E starts to apply. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

More crap off the Internet. Ludicrously thin claim to fame. Escapes speedy ONLY because it *asserts* notability, not actually having it. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by an anon IP. Calton | Talk 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Votes

(So there is no confusion, this is not a serious vote.)

Comments

  • WP:ITSSOURCED: "Even articles that cite reliable sources and are verifiable do not necessarily merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many events that were briefly in the news have multiple newspaper articles written about them (frequently with similar content), and can thus be sourced, but are (after the event is over) not of a significant historical or cultural impact." --Calton | Talk 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAPER. unless you can point to an actual policy that is not satisfied by this subject, this is solely a matter of opinion. --Random832 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her"? Oh boy. Ichormosquito 04:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. The radio show I was listening to on the way to work the day I wrote that was slightly... misinformed. LOL. Turlo Lomon 07:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not alone. Keith Olbermann made the same mistake: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubUHbwAzydc Ichormosquito 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine's a reason. Your's is a dodge. So no, not a "rise". --Calton | Talk 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, pay attention: I offer a link to a common -- and widely accepted -- rationale. You, instead of actually addressing the rationale, simply offer up a link about not offering up links -- which makes it not only a rhetorical dodge, but an ironic one at that. So, were you actually going to address it, or were you going to dredge up some more shortcuts? --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read Jreferee keep comment below for answers. The readers digest version is non-temporary notability has been established. Fosnez 07:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short form, then, given that the keep comment does not such thing: no. Got it. --Calton | Talk 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you honestly still maintaining that this is not notable? Fosnez 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you actually attempting the passive-aggressive rhetorical-question dodge? Really? Instead, you know, honestly answering the questions asked? Are you? Have you been reduced to that sort of rhetorical handwaving? --Calton | Talk 06:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riiiiiiight... well now you're just being unhelpful... - Fosnez 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really. And your passive-aggressive rhetorical-question crap about "are you honestly still maintaining" WAS intended to be helpful -- or is this another exception you've granted yourself? At this point, I'm thinking I could start a drinking game based on each time you pull a new rhetorical dodge out of your hat. Good thing the weekend's coming up or I'd be unfit for work. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is not about me or my apparent "rhetorical dodges". If you don't believe this article should be included in wikipedia then please explain precisely what policy it does not meet, and why it does not meet it. Fosnez 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're throwing around Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays, how about WP:TLW? That one's a good read. Ichormosquito 05:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deserving to be notable is not the same as being notable, only the latter matters here. Debolaz 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not temporary - if he was once notable, he is forever notable. Fosnez 13:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blink. You're seriously saying that appearing once on the home page of an Australian website means makes him famous forever? You're actually making this claim? --Calton | Talk 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before, notability is not the same as being a celebrity. Debolaz 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a dessert topping is not a floor wax, and what does any of it mean regarding the price of tea in China? --Calton | Talk 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, he was notable before the Britney incident see here - Fosnez 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not really a reason to not include a NPoV article - Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Care to expand on that? Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I've heard he's just another internet meme who's gotten a little bit of coverage. I guess if he appears on a TV show or something similar but so far he's just another youtube star. Wasn't he deleted earlier as well?--CyberGhostface 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe article was deleted before, but that was due to lack of sources... now that sources have been added and he has become much more notable Fosnez 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems unlikely and WP is not a crystal ball so we should go on evidence at hand. Benjiboi 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so a source talking something other the the Britney incident would suffice? Like this one? Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia isn't going to make him famous, He's already famous. Allstarecho™ 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is about the weakest reason I can think of to keep any one piece of crap. If you think some page isn't worthy, by all means please nominate it for deletion so we can get rid of stuff that isn't worthy. But wikipedia is huge and nobody can know about what one person considers deletable unless he/she says something. DMacks 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a question of whether I think those articles are notable- I'm just saying that Chris Crocker is JUST AS notable as they are, no more, no less (with maybe one or two exceptions, like the Evolution of Dance guy) so if we're going to delete this article we may as well delete all the others, because by declaring Chris Crocker non-notable we're declaring most of the other Youtube celebs with 15 seconds of fame non-notable too. But if this article is kept then that validates the existence of the other articles. See what I'm saying here? It's either all or nothing. dethtoll 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read over WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. It's not "all or nothing". The Bus Uncle passes WP:WEB with flying colors. What What (In the Butt) is borderline. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happyslip for an example of the notability guidelines in action as applied to YouTube celebrities. Ichormosquito 19:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't follow. If the news media finds criticism of criticism notable, who are we to say otherwise? In response to your concerns about his longterm notability, I again quote ABC News: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." You might also want to look over the article from The Stranger (newspaper)[7], which is surprisingly thorough and was published BEFORE the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being on ABC News is not evidence of longterm notability. That's the nature of the news...they report on the "right now". And this simply is not notable. Smashville 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing that his being on ABC News establishes notability. I'm arguing that the nature of his coverage might. Being the 30th or so most subscribed user on YouTube tends to give one a healthy amount of exposure, and both ABC News and The Stranger acknowledge he had a significant fan base before the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should move the article to Chris Crocker (Youtube) or Chris Crocker (Youtube Director) or something? Fosnez 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seriously, did you even read the article? this article is filled with nonsens, vandalism and it's poorly written and not enough sources to back all the claims it makes If you find vandalism, fix it. If it's poorly written, rewrite it. Six sources have been added to the article, thats not enough? Fosnez 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - according to policy, being made a laughing stock in several newspapers does make you notable Fosnez 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to quote, well you, actually... "Thats a dodge" Fosnez 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm quoting you -- it's called "irony", you could look it up -- about the defects in simply pointing to a link, especially when said link contains no evidence of what you claim. Or does it? Now might be the time to actually prove that. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify what you mean by not notable? If its sources then they have well been established as being reliable etc. Or is it that you Don't like the article and believe that it shouldn't be on wikipedia(because thats not a valid reason for deletion)? (please, this is not ment as a personal attack) Fosnez 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you mean Jeffree Star, who has an article? Where through afd it was decided to keep the article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More like the Jeffree Starr who bludgeoned his way, tirelessly and relentlessly onto Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's too late to worry about seeming vapid to future generations. dethtoll 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, yeah we want to record this for our future generation, he has been on the cover of most major news websites, newcasts. This type of thing is part of the planet's collective culture. Fosnez 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't leave him alone, world, you're gonna have to deal with me! Because he's not well right now! (All right, I'm done too) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more evidence than a Seattle alt-weekly's claim regarding this alleged "huge" celebrity status. Being a "Youtube celebrity", for all I know, is the equivalent of the World's Tallest Pygmy. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to ABC News's saying he had "quite a fan base" even before the Britney video, MSNBC says he had/has a "cult following".[9] They're almost quoting WP:BIO verbatim. Ichormosquito 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Jreferee (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging would completely discount what this individual has accomplished before the Britney video was even created. Turlo Lomon 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Significant historical or cultural impact" is ridiculously subjective, which might be part of the reason why WP:ITSSOURCED is an essay, not a guideline. Even after this Britney thing blows over, Crocker will continue to make videos, as he has for the past six months, and they will continue to get 300,000+ views. The site might not look it, but YouTube is highly competitive. Once a personality reaches the heights that Crocker has, he or she stays in the limelight there for at least a year. And the sources have already tried to place him in a wider cultural context. According to them, Crocker is a stifled homosexual in the Southern United States for whom YouTube is a godsend. Ichormosquito 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see your point but however he is making himself into an well attention (well you know the word that you should insert here) and giving him a Wikipedia page is catering to him wanting to get famous for nothing deal. Its not exactly like Pars Hilton who yes got famous for being famous but she at least has been in movies. But thats just my opinion on this. Evolutionselene 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Numa Numa guy has a page. Is he more famous than Crocker? Saopaulo1 22:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should be as dispassionate as possible. If he's notable, he's notable, whether or not he's an attention whore. Ichormosquito 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If Wikipedia hasn’t recognized Chris as an official Internet phenomenon, he certainly is now." Is this mocking? Looks like an opinion to me. Legitimate, of course, but are we bound to follow it? I don't think so. Tizio 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note the comparison to Warhol. Who's being mocked here, in your opinion? Tizio 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's mocking. Taunting, anyway. The author has obviously seen that his article is disputed. And the Warhol comparison is apt, if exaggerated. He's not being compared to Warhol, but to Candy Darling. Ichormosquito 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that article is talking about the fact we don't have this guy on List_of_Internet_phenomena, not this article or this AFD. At least, that's the page her article is linking to. But seriously, the day we let an editorial comment made by one journalist dictate our editorial decisions is the day most of us will give up on this project. Sarah 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing we should cave to the opinion of one journalist. I just thought it was funny. For the sake of balance, I don't think Richard Roeper would be happy if we legitimized Crocker's grab for fame.[10] Still, as Roeper acknowledges, a mention in his column does nothing but support Crocker's self-promotion. Ichormosquito 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No on says you have to save someone's life to have a Wikipedia article. In fact, WP:N says "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which is satisfied. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP is not a crystal ball and, in this case, we don't need one, notability is now well-referenced. Benjiboi 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been swayed by the suggestion that notability can be examined later. Mallocks 11:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Will anyone ever research this subject? Probably, I would see this as a good case study in the changing landscape of media and convergence of pop culture and personal politics. I also think that homophobia has at least a little to do with some of the motivations as is evidenced by the comments both here and on the talk page that have been removed. Benjiboi 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Thats exactly the point I had been trying to convey, Bobyllib. Evolutionselene 00:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the topic of an article is in the news today and it ceases to be in the news or anyone's mind, should the article be deleted? Should the article on scientists except Galileo, Newton, Eisntien, and Hawking be deleted? Should the article on ... I guess you get the idea. --Do not click me! 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since when is the BBC and MSNBC junk news? Turlo Lomon 06:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might have had a point with the first one. The second? Not so much. But then, the statement was junk news articles, not junk news sources: it's best to make counter-arguments to what people have actually written, as opposed to what you've made up. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BBC source is to the original Britney performance, it has no mention of Chris Crocker... 87.127.166.59 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.
Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. --Walther Atkinson 07:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question He has been in the news since May, significantly before the Britney thing. At what point does it become "long term" ? Turlo Lomon 08:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Answer. He has been more prominent in the last year but emerging information suggests he was developing a cult foloowing over eight years ago as a pre-teen on Aol. That has yet to be sourced so has not entered the article in any form. Benjiboi 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


An "its unequivocally time for a section break" section break!

FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Also, in response to the sustainability of his notability, his videos on YouTube and Myspace have a very heavy following and do not appear to cease anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbrooks (talk • contribs) 09:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is permanent. Or perhaps I should say WP:NOT#CRYSTAL? It's no more appropriate to claim an article should be deleted because you think it will have stopped being notable in a few months than it is to claim an article should be kept because you think it will become notable in a few months. --tjstrf talk 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability is not permanant, and i found the policy, here. --Jac16888 10:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i wrote that wrong, Notability is permanant, Crocker's is not long-term, it is "a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability"--Jac16888 10:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use presumptions of future (non-)notability to judge the page one way or another. --tjstrf talk 10:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then delete him when he's fallen off the internet's radar - he's notable NOW! - Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.12.112 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, secondly, how can you compare the notability of an Olympic athlete or professional sports player, no matter how good or bad they are at the sport, to this guy? Its an entirely different level of notability--Jac16888 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point I agree. Your second point you can compare notability though "general notability guidelines" found in WP:NOTABILITY. Interesting thing here is that there's Chris Crocker the football player and Chris Crocker the internet celebrity ... looking at the football players references which he hasn't any I would delete him too. Some would even fix the disamb so that the internet celebrity page would be immediately shown. — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I thought geriatric1927's vids had more views than they did, since he was the #1 subscribed director at one time. I guess YouTube didn't have as many users at that time. Still, Crocker is only the #25 most subscribed director, and he's surely more popular right now than he ever has been. Eseymour 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What do you consider non-trivial? A book? Taken together, these contain more than enough biographical information to support an article: [12][13][14] I'm tending to agree with BlarghHgralb below. Ichormosquito 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason Internet memes get nominated for deletion is because they are typically so short-lived. There's just no comparison between this guy and Clara Peller (the "Where's the beef" lady). Outside of a small group of fans, no one knew this guy before a few days ago. "Where's the Beef" is still part of America's cultural memory over two decades later. Maybe everyone will remember "Leave Britney Alone" a year from now, but right now there's no indication that this guy's fame is more than "a short burst of present news coverage." Furthermore, the guideline states that "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Eseymour 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just about to say the exact same thing. Some phenomenon may be temporarily famous on the internet, but unless it has some impact on the wider world, it's not notable. (Examples of internet phenomena that did achieve wider impact are Lonelygirl15 and the Star Wars kid.) Clara Peller is familiar to a generation (even if they don't know her name) because she was on national television; Chris Crocker is unknown beyond the relatively small blogging/forum/YouTube community that discovered him in the first place, and is likely to remain that way. Terraxos 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Where's the Beef lady had an impact on a generation, but you would never know that in the 80s. How are you so sure that Crocker wont become a new annoying catch phrase. After all it's only been a few days. Saopaulo1 05:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what exactly makes Chris Crocker any less notable than the Star Wars kid or Lonelygirl15? They've receieved about the same amount of coverage as Chris Crocker has. --BlarghHgralb 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the articles. The Star Wars kid was spoofed in multiple TV shows; Lonelygirl15 was covered in the New York Times, and spoofed in the trailer for Date Movie, amongst others. That's wider notability, and Chris Crocker has not achieved it. Terraxos 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes MSNBC less notable than the New York Times? --BlarghHgralb 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the MSNBC source is a blog. The byline is accompanied by a cartoon caricature of the writer. This is not typical of straight news articles on the site (or anywhere). Eseymour 16:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm not sure you can dismiss the YouTube community so hastily. Internet video and YouTube in particular are big deals, as sources like this one released yesterday assert: http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/13/video/. Internet video has a mainstream appeal; we're not just talking about memetics.

Ichormosquito 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, and - 'hivemind deletionists'? 'Come out of their basements'? Please try to WP:AGF.Terraxos 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability only lasts if there is a good reason for it to last. A person born in 1857 might still be notable today if s/he did something of lasting importance; but someone who was simply well-known for a while, then faded away, might not be. See Notability is not temporary, which states that if someone was only notable for a brief period in the past, they may not meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia today. Of course, in this case, it's disputed whether Chris Crocker is even notable now, let alone 100 years in the future - hence we're having this AfD. Terraxos 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it troubling that you skipped over WP:BIO's "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." According to this source, he had a "cult following", a direct quote, even before the Britney video. According to this one: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." Ichormosquito 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it equally as disturbing that you are using that as the sole criteria towards keeping this Internet fad. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find ironic that you are also using something as the sole criteria toward deleting the article. --BlarghHgralb 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not my sole reason for wanting to keep. He's been covered by multiple secondary sources the world over. He's also been on the Howard Stern Show, and his video was featured on CNN, Fox News, and Keith Olbermann. To counter accusations of recentism, I have pointed out this article from May 2007, in addition to making the fanbase and cult following argument. Ichormosquito 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you guys have convinced me: it looks like Chris Crocker has received more mainstream attention than I realised. I still DON'TLIKEIT, but I accept he meets notability, and have changed my vote above to Keep. Terraxos 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important distinction - There's a difference between the "Britney" video being notable and its author being notable. The fact that there have been X million views of the vid and various parodies made strengthens the case for the video being notable, but not necessarily the author. Eseymour 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE! - The Daddy 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • This vote for Keep is mine. Forgot to login. On another note, the article may want to plug Seth Green's parody of the "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE" video. --Ted 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Page views on YouTube mean nothing. If they did, Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series wouldn't be a protected title. (I believe the WP:ATA section is called WP:BIGNUMBER). As for the press coverage, it is about the video, and that is the only thing he is notable for. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS apply. --Phirazo 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hang on, I could have sworn that an article about this same guy was up for deletion a couple of months ago...pretty much the same content, with the major exception of the video which is such a subject of interest...or maybe I'm just imagining it. Anyway, I'm a bit divided here, because several things are clear. 1), this person/the video has indeed recieved significant coverage by the media, which makes it seem as though it is in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, 2), notability is not temporary, and this person/video may or may not have the longevity necessary for an article, 3) even if notability does exist, it is quite likely that the notability is of the video, and not the person, and that to have a biographical article for a person, while it is in fact a creation of theirs that is notable may be a bit of misplaced judgement, and 4), this article seems really familiar. So overall I don't have a resounding opinion here as to whether or not to delete. One thing that I will say is that Wikipedia definitely needs more clearly defined guidelines as far as intenet celebrities and viral videos are concerned, and fast. Calgary 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment And yet, I can't turn a corner without hearing about Perez Hilton, in the real world as well as online. And to address your questions about the Crocker kid: 1) What do marketed sales have to do with celebrity and fame, let alone simple notability? 2) Yes, unfortunately, he has made public appearances on TV. But, again, what does that have to do with anything? Does your life revolve around television? The frightening and annoying nature of this example aside, I find the mockery of Internet fame amusing...when Lucille Balle left B movies to go into television, televison stardom was mocked and looked down on. It was more than just a few rungs below even B movie stardom. So the fact that you seem to imply that appearing on television makes someone a real celebrity, as oppposed to an Internet one...well, it's amusing.--Adam the Alien 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, i'd like to thank you for your reply. Now, i'm not saying i'm a constant TV watcher at all but i've never seen any public appearances from this kid so I was wondering, excluding his "Leave Britney Alone" video, how he has even become an "internet celebrity". As for the marketed sales thing, I see a celebrity as someone who at least makes a profit from something or is involved in something that sells - musician, actor, all that. Could even go as far as saying a painter or author but I have yet to see this kid become a celebrity. Furik 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep in mind that Wikipedia recognizes a celebrity as "A celebrity is a widely-recognized or famous person who commands a high degree of public and media attention.". Celebrity has absolutely nothing to do with the significance of a person's contributions or, more to your point, the medium of a person's fame. Television may have been around for longer, but the internet is one of the most major forms of media in existence, and comes close to rivaling television as the world's greatest media outlet. That being said, regardless of how much legitimacy one may feel the internet reputes, the internet is indeed a media outlet, and must be recognized as such for a definitive conclusion to be reached here. Calgary 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some evidence that the man is in fact Kirk Johnson. I typed his name in google (along with "goatse" so we can results of him and not the boxer) [16]. Most of the results say that the man is Kirk Johnson. Not only that, I viewed the HTML source of the goatse.cz mirror, and the keywords in the code contained "Kirk Johnson" in it. Here is the source: 

<HTML><HEAD><!-- Start Quantcast tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_qacct="p-95ACIuCMJpQa2";quantserve();</script>
<noscript>
<img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-95ACIuCMJpQa2.gif" style="display: none" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></noscript>
<!-- End Quantcast tag -->
<TITLE>Goatse - the official site</TITLE>
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Goatse, Goatse.cz, Goatse.cx, Goatsecz, Goatsecx, Anal Stretching, Goatse Man, Kirk Johnson, 
Shock site, Tubgirl, the giver, the receiver">
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="The official Goatse site at Goatse.cz. Visit us to find what you're looking for...">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="info@goatse.cz">
<META name="Rating" content="General">
<META name="Robots" content="All">
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE="5" FACE="Helvetica, Arial, San Serif, Serif, Times"><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+2">
....
style="text-decoration: none" href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><span style="color:#000000;">dolphinsex</span></a>*
src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">

</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-422197-6";
urchinTracker();</script>
 </BODY></HTML>

Now, if you look on the line that says 'META NAME="Keywords"', you'll see Kirk Johnson's name in the list of keywords. Not only that, you can also see the alt attribute "stinger" in the source aswell, which was removed recently.

Also, on the goatse mirror, there is an information page that's a biography of goatse. They also mention the identity of him [17] (safe to view). It says he's a regular poster to the newsgroup "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal". Since it's mentioning that Kirk Johnson is the goatse man and a regular contributor to an anal site of some sort, I don't think this is violating the WP:BLP policy. And to make things even better, the work on that site is licensed under the GFDL, just like Wikipedia.

Second, it also mentions the origin of the alt attribute "Stinger" of the #quake channel, and the origin of the word "goatse". Although it says some of it is from the Wikipedia article, notice how it says "some of it".

Now, I know this may not be sufficient evidence for the origin of the term "goatse" and the "stinger" alt, but I think it's sufficient evidence that the man is Kirk Johnson (The page source, the google results...). Any questions? --AAA! (AAAA) 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... but when I first started reading your comment it appeared to be a heavy dose of original research, once I got to the end however and saw the source I can tell now it is ok. So I'll say this looks fine and you can add it in, so long as you carefully source it and do not add in any of your own extra original research. Mathmo Talk 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Kirk Johnson" and "goatse" and you'll see evidence that the "Goatse photograph" is of Kirk Johnson, and yet, despite the research done by AAA!' (AAAA), as well as Goatse's identity being "known" (as much as anyone's identity can be know on the internet), the Goatse Wikipedia article does not mention him by name. How is Kirk Johnson any less notable than Chris Crocker? I'd say he's not. But it doesn't matter: Goatse guy (and many others) is known by his "work" on the internet, as is Chris Crocker. Delete Crocker's name and make the article about his viral videos. The videos, not the person, are what's significant culturally. Zebraic

Comment. Seriously - you just posted this massive piece on the article's talk page, are you hoping to build interest in that article or some other agenda? I'll give you a good faith pass that you are just providing a lengthy example but I think brevity would help make your point. Benjiboi 05:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely defending my stance. I have NO agenda about the Goatse article. I just cut and pasted my argument because my argument is the same. I really would rather not talk about Goatse, in fact. I'm merely using an illustration. Zebraic 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Edit: And you're probably right about the brevity; I felt like I ought to be thorough at the time. That's a good point, though. Thanks! Zebraic 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took a lot of the HTML out to make it shorter. Zebraic 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must delete? -- But|seriously|folks  06:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read my argument? Why do these things always burst into flame wars? That comment is dismissive and inasmuch I find it bordering on a personal attack on me. Please don't do that. Thanks. Zebraic 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, but I guess I don't understand it. It was obviously well intentioned, so I have stricken through my flip comment. Please accept my apologies. -- But|seriously|folks  16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Apology accepted. If you go to the discussion of the article we're reviewing, there's a shorter argument by me, following this one, under "Viral Video?". Like I said on the talk page, I'm through talking about this though. Zebraic 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTE "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This is 15 minutes of fame. Delete it. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's admirable that you are willing to note policies but it would be better to follow them Per WP:NOTE. Benjiboi 06:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

  • Comment. Actually both are notable and should be kept. Benjiboi 08:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured. :) Keithbrooks 09:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well if you're gonna keep this page then I think this youtube Vid should at least be on it. Evolutionselene 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Go for it! It speaks to his outrageousness and the public's williness to fall for and feed upon it. Benjiboi 10:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The homophobic slurs ("ginger beer"=queer) aren't going to help your case, and aren't appropriate here. --Proper tea is theft 15:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not your place to lecture me on what I may or may not say. Comradeash 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but this is a public forum, and such deregatory terms are unnecessary.
  • As it says in the infobox, it isn't policy and it isn't binding. Comradeash 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but it means that you have no point whatsoever. "The only reason he's famous..." is irrelevant. We're not discussing whether or not he should receive an award; we're discussing the article. Irk Come in for a drink! 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitrary section break

FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Indent reset * Comment. The MySpace and Youtube refs were used to provide factual information about what was said, how many views, date added, rankings at each site, numbers of videos on site presently, etc. to supplement what WP:RS were asserting. Per WP:SELFPUB may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

I wouldn't have kept any material in that I thought was violating the spirit of these policies and indeed have been working to revert and warn editors who have been adding material that does violate policies. Benjiboi 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have to use self-published material to establish notability outside of his one video, then he isn't notable outside of that one video. --Phirazo 00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You're absolutely correct that's why notability is establish with WP:RS first then WP:SELFPUB used to supplement that information. Benjiboi 01:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, this article is about a living person who has received a significant degree of attention by both the internet community and major world media outlets, thus it is a sutible topic for wikipedia.
WP:BIO, does this article meet the requirement of notability? He meets "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The coverage is not trivial because it is so widespread internationally. He also meets "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." as described on several of the news sources and thus qualifies under "Entertainer". Is the notability temporary? The major media attention may be temporary, but it is documented that he had posted videos on youtube that received significant numbers of viewings as far back as January, which suggests that his following is not temporary.
--Mattarata 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree to a point and sadly that point seems to be getting a bit blurry as traditional media and new media outlets merge and challenge the traditional news models that many experts were trained in. I hardly expect this to be the last case we see of online celebrity raising such passionate ick feelings. Benjiboi 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without exaggerating, there are millions of YouTube participants. When one of them attracts large-scale worldwide attention from the media, it is not unreasonable for Wikipedia, the sum of human knowledge, to cover them as well. Yamaguchi先生 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment here was more on the Internet as a source of coverage than as a source of celebrity (to that, see the comment above mine). The question, I think, is this: does large-scale worldwide attention from the media mean as much as it used to? Powers T 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but what's the alternative? Just use the random opinions of WP editors? The media still have finite resources, and cannot cover everything, so they do provide a useful 3rd party filter for WP content. They can't make someone famous every day, so if we get say one new media darling per week or so, or 50 cases like this per year, so what? We are creating new articles at a rate of around 50,000 per month. It just doesn't matter. Better to stick with a reasonable system that mostly works, than to try to fix something that's not broken just because we don't like 100.00% of the outcomes. Dhaluza 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "whew! take a breather!" section break!

BAM?????--Jac16888 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disagree. He is mostly notable for one event because of wider public recognition but clearly had a huge cult following prior as well as prior media interest, coverage, a TV deal and a working relationship with MTV. Benjiboi 15:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well many websites owners, websites, myspace and youtube users may have what you consider a "huge cult following", but they don't get their own page. Does having 1,000 subscribers and 1 million views to my youtube give me a huge cult following and notable? No. No MTV deal has been sealed yet. There is nothing stopping this person from being forgotten within months.--The Negotiator 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if they get media coverage for such maybe they do, Crocker certainly did. And it wasn't me calling it a cult following it was member sof the media although with so many people subscribing I think it's hard to disagree with that. If, as you suggest is possible, he falls from our collective consciousness the article can certainly be re-interpreted for just the video alone. Regardless he has gotten plenty of coverage with or without the MTV deal in place to assert notability which is what this AfD seems to need.Benjiboi 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WngLdr34 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but, the lonelygirl15 article isn't about a person, its about the hoax that was lonelygirl15, it says nothing about the real person behind her.--Jac16888 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look no further than Jessica Lee Rose, we do have an article about the person behind the persona. RFerreira 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but reading that article, she has notability both from and beyond lonelygirl15, such as lonelygirl was actually a paying role, and has since been in a UN antipoverty campaign--Jac16888 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this discussion is a greater embarrassment to WP than the article was before it was rescued. After improvement, this whole discussion is moot anyway. Also the point about goal post shifting is right on target. People who contribute content to WP have a right to expect the community to respect its own standards, and not delete work based on arbitrary standards made up after the fact. Consensus can change over time, but it should not be interpreted as changing from time-to-time. Dhaluza 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "goalposts" have always been the same - show Crocker is notable outside of one video. He isn't. --Phirazo 19:38, 16 September 2007 (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.
More