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 keep. Those arguing for deletion seem to do nothing but assert the non-notability of this subject, while those arguing to keep actually explain its notability. Those arguments are never countered. Mangojuice^talk 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh[edit]

Previously listed as possibly not notable on 09:55, July 6, 2006. No significant changes to article's notability since then. Unclear if this could have been speedy deleted for ((db-bio)) or ((db-club)). Listed for AfD and discussion. -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Though smosh is popular and likeable, they are using wikipedia for a personal reason. My suggestion is they can create a page in smosh instead carrying the same information --User:non-user 10Ģ:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote was actually added by anon--WinHunter ^(talk) 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I suggest that we keep this article because smosh is a part of the internet as well pop culture. It has been written about in the New York Times, Teen People as aired as part of a news segment on ABC. (Sorry, I don't know how to place the links on here, but I have edited and checked the wikipedia page of smosh for a while now.) Sure, the writing might be a little on the lacking side but there was help offered by Zeketheo at 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC) saying that he'll do it in a day or two. I'm not putting blame on anyone but normally when someone offers help like that, it should have been follow through.

One of the reasons I'm ticked off by this whole deletion situation is that the smosh wikipedia page keeps being marked as "advertisment" and does not meet the Neutural Point of View. No one has explained to us how the page got these status nor gave any suggestions how to improve on it to overcome this tag. Overall I suggest that we keep this page, but work on it so that it meets these standards and not to have just people tag it without a clear explaination. Thank you. Rockmusic389 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have been doing some reading into the Wikipedia pages and keeping with a unbias stance, I don't see anything wrong with the page except with the quality of writing. I kept addmening and adding to the page it address a current pop fashion or fad becuase of the poplular "pokemon video" from thier site which was also broadcasted onto youtube. smosh is more than the website but it's becoming more poplular as more people are finding out about them through their videos. Also, according to WP:WEB (see link in the comment below this), this site was created a user of the forum other than the 2 smosh guys and it is not a promotion of this site, just an informative piece about the site, thus it is not going against any of the neutrality guidelines. amended byRockmusic389 07:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the "Pokemon Theme Song" might be notable, Smosh itself fails WP:WEB, and the reputable sources cited talk about YouTube, not Smosh. --Huon 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Smosh can be considered as an internet phenomenon and is notable on the internet. Although not mentioned in the article, their site is always linked to when videos are released and is notable as well. -- Gigano | Talk 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A lot of the article is crappy, but that's not a reason to delete. I believe it deserves a SHORT article. --mboverload@ 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many viewers of our videos have told us that this article has helped answer their questions. I don't understand why this article is up for deletion. --smosh, 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New account with all edits to this AFD only. --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creating a new user just to contribute to an AfD does not lend a sense of credibility to the discussion. Especially when the user has the same name as the article. And when the comment includes "...our videos..." -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- amended by MrDolomite | Talk 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had this account for some time now (October 2005) and I check this page every once in a while to see if the updates are accurate. I did not make it simply to make a response here. -- smosh 01:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies to User:Smosh about being a new user created for this AfD. I did not check the creation logs -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It gives people a place to find information on Smosh. Thus elimating them spamming the forums with questions the wikipedia article answers. --Ashuku

Comment Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. Sorry about their forums. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- amended to remove possible negative connotation of "blog" reference, which is part of the linked article's subsection's heading. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who said we were using it as a blog? -- Ashuku

Comment The pronoun in the preceding sentence strikes me as interesting if not necessarily incriminating in/of itself. Icewolf34 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not-notable. -- GWO
• Delete, at the time this article fails WP:WEB standards of notability. A Google search for the term yields 146 unique Google hits, and I couldn't find any articles (from independent sources meeting WP:V) where Smosh was the subject of the article. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I did my own Google Search for "Smosh" and came up with 1,490,000 sites discussing Smosh itself, the Smosh videos, and a wide range of the Smosh community (across sites like Flickr, etc.) I dunno what defines "Unique Google Hits", and I see zero options to filter by that criteria in advanced search preferences, either. And this is just Google hits - it's also ignoring mentions they've gotten, as mentioned earlier, in prestigious newspapers like the New York Times. BlazeHedgehog 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confirm well over 1,400,000 Google hits. Might not be evidence of notability by itself, but I'm not sure where/how HG got his stats. (Government censorship of Smosh sites?) Icewolf34 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google's number of reported hits is not always reliable. "Original hits" refers to the number of pages before Google cuts off the list of result due to the remainder being "very similar". For example:

• Searching for smosh+Padilla gives 147 results.
• Pages linking to smosh.com: 92.
• Pages containing the term "smosh.com": 185.
• "Smosh" by itself gives 405 original hits, but not all of them really concern the article's topic. --Huon 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A youtube search [1] clearly indicates six of their videos have a view count more than 1 million; ten of their videos has achieved 28.8 million views together. But, certainly, the article needs some rewriting (don't look at me :)) Frigo 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[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.