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. Taking into account WP:NOTAVOTE, the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping the page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Unicorn[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charlie the Unicorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Because a previous AfD led to deletion, I think I need to bring this back to AfD, but I'm not taking a position because the last paragraph has 3 reasons to keep that were not present in the version that got deleted 2.5 years ago. Keep it civil, folks; the previous AfDs had a lot of drama. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Verifiable how? That it's one of the most watched videos of all time? YouTube ranks these videos on the website, links are in the footnotes. - superβεεcat  16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is misleading. The gawker article is not just a link to the video, it's an article about Weezer using youtube to capitalize on extremely popular videos, and then links to those videos. It references both the fact of it being in the music video, and its importance to the youtube community by including it among the most popular of all time. Similarly, the salon blurb is not "just a link". A link isn't a paragraph about the subject, and then a link. This is "Just a Link". - superβεεcat  16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hardly misleading. The Gawker mention doesn't give any specifics about Charlie the Unicorn, it simply says "hey, they included a bunch of stuff, here's some links" - that's a textbook trivial mention, as is (no matter your opinion) the Salon "blurb". Look, we get it, you like it, but the current sourcing on the article is extremely poor - and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Instead of trying to discredit my argument, try coming up with some legitimate references. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely misleading. Enough mentions in good sources, even minor (though they aren't minor) amount to an overall notability. Moreover, I know you don't like it, but instead of removing valid citations as advertising (!?) try doing something constructive. - superβεεcat  17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simple mentions, even in reliable sources, do not equal notability. Nor does, as we've discussed on the article talk page (and you've been informed by an administrator), your addition of sales links or forum posts. Significant coverage is the key here, and this topic does not have it. As for my "liking it", I've never seen the thing - I don't need to have for this discussion, as the level of reliable references simply does not exist to support an article for this thing. And since you're trying to discredit *my* argument, I see no reason why you should have a problem with me doing the same to yours. That is what this discussion is about - it's not a vote - it's an argument about which position (keep or delete) is most appropriate. Quit trying to make this personal. It's not. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I've found an entire clothing line at major retailer hot topic based on Charlie the Unicorn. That alone should meet the basic threshold for notability. http://search.hottopic.com/clothing/Charlie%20The%20Unicorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs)

(lulwut) They're all on sale 1/2 price so what does that tell you? Drawn Some (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the people at Hot Topic are desperate to sell something else than bondage pants and Invader Zim merchandise? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on the store is irrelavent, as is the purchase price. They are a major retail outlet. They sell the stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.51.254 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note one particular editor keeps removing citations from the article itself, and is clearly trying to hijack this article's chances. If you don't like a source, then vote not to keep, but edit warring an article already in afd is not productive. - superβεεcat  17:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"

and then goes on

"3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster..."

We can agree youtube doesn't meet this criteria. However, most of what the detractors are citing as trivial mentions actually satisfy notability due to this guideline. The Salon AND Gawker (which are independent and respected) pages DISTRIBUTE this content. They don't link, you can watch the video itself on those pages, meeting the criteria. Because web content must only meet ONE of the listed criteria, and distribution on these sites meets the criteria, it is notable, per the web content guideline ALONE. - superβεεcat  22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left out this part of criterion 3: except for trivial distribution. The distribution by Salon.com for example is incidental, not deliberate and could be considered trivial. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely false. The "except trivial distribution" refers specifically to websites which have no editorial oversight such as youtube. How in the world can you say the salon.com page is not deliberate? It's part of their videodog section, and is completely deliberate. That makes no sense. The referenced pieces are all distributed by the writers of the columns themselves, not uploaded by random users such as with youtube or newgrounds, which would be trivial, as anyone can do so. -24.130.51.254 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC) — 24.130.51.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
Category