Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me at the zoo

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 April 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 to delete. In view of some of the comments in this ill-tempered debate, I should say that I have taken no account of aspersions cast on the nominator's motives, or of the status or reputation of the contributors. There are weak arguments and reasonable ones on both sides, numbers are roughly equal, and I see no other possible conclusion. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me at the zoo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can be merged with YouTube as a section. Not of importance at all. Illuendo (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ with articles in the NYT, LA Times and recognized as an internet milestone on the BBC some years after the original event, the impact on the historic record is obvious, particularly when compared to lengthy Wikipedia articles about some guy screaming about Britney or a random chipmunk for which there is no merge proposal. Keep per WP:GNG and WP:UCS. Fæ (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - the AFDs raised on Pomplamoose, Me at the zoo and Alexa Goddard appear to be deliberately disruptive rather than raised for any good reason. The nominator has been warned and I suggest this AFD is closed on this basis. Fæ (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete|Merge: The following article is not important to the world of Internet, but, it can be a section of "YouTube", since it was the very first video ever uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.248 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In Wikipedia, articles like 'Me at the zoo' are considered stubs. Unless there is some improvement which shows this web content is an achievement (which is obviously ruled out since being first somewhere on the internet is nothing really special), it should be merged with YouTube. 203.116.251.232 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How odd that you are interested in David Choi as well as the last anon IP commenting here, oh and I see that the nominator is also interested in the same articles. Please be aware that this sort of thing does not go unnoticed, particularly on AFD pages. Fæ (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fæ,. adequate sources to support notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with YouTube. No notability outside the website. I does have trivial mentions in some media outlets, but it has not been the subject of in-depth coverage for its own sake. Notability is not inherited, nor should it be. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the BBC article is not a trivial mention. The GNG asks for detail rather than making depth a specific requirement (it actually states that depth may vary) and a valid Wikipedia article may be both entirely encyclopaedic and short at the same time, by itself this is not a reason for merge. Fæ (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of the difference between short and trivial. It isn't necessary for you reply to every !vote on an AfD that doesn't agree with yours. Out of the three nominations made by Illuendo, this one may actually hold water. You've given your opinion, let everyone else have a go. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your characterization is misplaced, I replied to your observation that the sources were trivial mentions which appears factually incorrect to me. My other contributions here were to change my own opinion and highlight that three of the accounts appearing here have similar contribution histories. This is not a "reply to every !vote". Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominating statement does not provide a valid reason for deletion. One editor's subjective view of importance is outweighed by the sources showing notability exists. It may not be The Jazz Singer (1927 film), but its been the subject of sufficient coverage for its special status.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 09:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Milowent • ^talkblp-r 09:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Youtube, per WP:MERGE criteria 'text' & 'context'. (Delete otherwise, do not keep -- as already covered in Youtube.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its mentioned in many news sources, plus is historically important for being the first video ever uploaded to YouTube. LA Times lists why it is notable. Many others cover it as well, as a Google news archive search reveals when. I searched for "Me at the zoo" AND "YouTube." [1] Dream Focus 14:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete|Merge with YouTube. This is a very interesting and exciting bit of information which would be better served as part of the YouTube page. TehGrauniad (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already mentioned on the YouTube page, though if deleted this would be the only notable video mentioned there without its own article. Fæ (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have a good point. But I was thinking of it more on its own merits, not comparing it to the conventions of other articles: it may well be that those other articles could be either deleted or merged into YouTube. What do you think? TehGrauniad (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering how much there is to say about the social impact of each of these top importance videos I doubt there would be a strong case to merge any of them, I suggest you read through a couple of those linked from the parent article, some are pretty extensive. Fæ (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with you in part. you don't need a sociologist to tell you that YouTube and its videos are socially important. This video is of course notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Also the first few words of a new technology at the forefront of web 2.0 certainly should be included. However, there is already the article Social impact of YouTube, do we really need each video that caused a craze to have a fanzine-esque article like at Charlie bit my finger? TehGrauniad (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's unfair to call it a fansite, Charlie Bit My Finger is well sourced and provides well written context. Personally I have randomly seen this video played in several TV programmes and remember seeing the family interviewed about it (and I'm rather uninterested in this sort of thing), so I have no problem thinking of it as a social phenomenon. Wikipedia embraces all notable knowledge and this includes transient social crazes so long as the impact can be verified. I see no benefit in tucking these articles away in a long list just because they are not "traditional" encyclopaedic material. The same views apply to Me at the zoo. Fæ (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should add that this is bad faith nomination. The nominator was annoyed that his own contribution related to web video was nominated for deletion, and retaliated thus. This article should not be deleted on such a faulty basis, as its tainted the conversation. Merge votes are keep votes, pending editorial discussion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much 'water under the bridge' now. What we have is a "very short and ... unlikely to be expanded" article that only has significance in the context of Youtube, and thus an obvious candidate for a WP:MERGE there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the article is not reason to eliminate it. It meets all notability requirements, and thus has the right to continue to exist on its own. And I already found something to expand it with earlier. The LA Times states: "as the first video uploaded to YouTube, it played a pivotal role in fundamentally altering how people consumed media and helped usher in a golden era of the 60-second video."[8] Dream Focus 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that User:Dream Focus read WP:MERGE before making such ill-informed comments. "The size of the article" is EXPLICITLY a reason for merging it. It is only ever mentioned in context of Youtube, so its notability is obviously only subsidiary to the notability of the latter topic, so should be addressed in that article (the article you are making such a big deal about is titled "YouTube turns 5", NOT '5 years since Me at the zoo was uploaded'). Any huffing and puffing to the contrary is merely so much hot air. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, MERGE is not a policy, if you are going to call other contributors "ill-informed" and deride their opinions as hot air, perhaps you should stick to pointing to real policies rather than making it appear that information pages are rules that have to be complied with. I believe that the significance of the video is clear, there are multiple high quality sources and the rationale for merge (that any YouTube video is a candidate for merge to the article on YouTube or that any short article is a merge candidate) is weak; perhaps that makes me ill-informed too? One could as easily argue that this article should be merged to Zoo, Jawed Karim or even Elephant. I am certain there is no reason for me to refer to WP:CIV as an editor with your experience will be fully familiar with these most basic policies. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "WP:GNG and WP:UCS" aren't policy either. And claiming that WP:MERGE criteria are ~~"irrelevant" to~~ ["not reason" for] a "merge" nomination and !votes is either "ill-informed" or outright tendentious! Per WP:SPADE, it is perfectly reasonable to characterise such spurious argumentation as "hot air". I really don't care what you "believe", but what you cannot substantiate with evidence. What the evidence suggests is that this topic has no notability outside the context of Youtube. "Thank you" for your WP:CIV-violative, WP:POT & spurious scold! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be quoting me as using the term "irrelevant", I did not. I have not said that either GNG or UCS are policies, though it should be noted that the later is considered a fundamental principle as supported by WP:5P (which is not policy either). It is not civil behaviour to criticise other contributors in an AFD as ill-informed, this is an unacceptable ad-hom argument. I suggest you take some time to reconsider your approach here and if you still believe that I am in breach of WP:CIV, WP:DE or WP:GAME then I suggest you follow a dispute resolution process as these are quite serious accusations to make against an administrator during an AFD. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was attempting to quote Dream Focus, and have now corrected my quote. To impugn WP:MERGE as "not a policy" having previously cited "WP:GNG and WP:UCS" as a basis for a !vote is ludicrously WP:POT. How would you characterise calling the explicit statement of an explicitly relevant and explicitly cited information page "not relevant", if not "ill-informed"? Whether through ignorance, or ill-intent, his claim is blatantly WP:complete bollocks. What is the the relevant "dispute resolution process" for misrepresentation in an AfD process? This is NOT an "ad-hom argument", it is a conclusion based upon the stark inconsistency between his statement and the reality of what WP:MERGE states. I suggest that you cease and desist your partisan, hypocritical and spurious WP:BAITing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Youtube. The first ever video for a highly notable site with millions of videos is pretty notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the same as delete in this case. Please state one or the other. Dream Focus 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 is under no obligation to accept your unsubstantiated premise, and "Keep or Merge" is not an uncommon !vote. Please keep your unwarranted demands to yourself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe anything will be taken from this article and added over to that one if it ends with merge? You can't say "Keep" OR "merge", you have to pick one or the other. Dream Focus 10:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of 120,000,000. Notable to me. --Lošmi (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of lots of videos on youtube, so quite notable. Doh5678 Talk 20:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with YouTube (and be sure to move all the content there). It's notable for being the first YouTube video, but I doubt that it will ever grow to any significant length. Therefore it serves the users best to have the content in the YouTube article. Jiiimbooh (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a no-brainer redirect. It's two paragraphs long and the only notable thing about the clip in question other than that it was the first is how nondescript it is, as amply demonstrated by the references. ~~If we must retain any content, then any one of the newspaper sources could be imported along with a line about the content (the sources unsurprisingly all say pretty much the same thing)~~ (striking: YouTube#Company history already contains precisely this amount of detail.) People pick the lamest articles to stake their reputations on sometimes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Staking their reputation? You should always do what you believe is right, and not care what others think about you. Although as far as reputation goes, I personally have a very bad opinion of people who try to delete things without having any legitimate reason to do so. I'm sure many people feel that way. Dream Focus 10:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should all stop getting so personal. Nobody is staking their reputation on this article. It's an AfD discussion, we aren't the UN. Calm down. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thumper, it was a pretty odd comment to make. If I had to stake my reputation (if I have one) when adding an opinion to AFDs then I would not bother ever giving an opinion unless the AFD was about to close and I was on the "winning" side. The only real issue for folks chipping in to an AFD is to make sure they do so in a civil and welcoming way. Neither should AFDs be a question of having to be "right" by always putting policy over common sense, otherwise our policies would never improve. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. Perception of how likely an editor is to have a firm grasp of policy and a reputation for following it is an important aspect of weighing up consensus, especially on battlegrounds such as XfD. Closing admins have to make judgement calls like that sometimes in assessing how strong a given argument is. Many of the arguments made above (and indeed the one directly below) would be extremely weak in isolation but could be bolstered by the support of editors with a reputation for fairness. This is a little meta for this AfD, but I felt I ought to explain my comment further. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was unexpected. Perhaps you should propose your viewpoint as an amendment to WP:DGFA as at the moment it says nothing about closing AFDs based on the reputation of "names" contributing rather than purely the merit of arguments being made. How much more weight do you think your name carries in an AFD, is it 2:1 compared to the opinions of "ordinary" contributors, or maybe higher? Out of interest, do you think that my opinion only counts at a standard weight or would you allow me to "pull rank" too? Thanks for explaining your comment, it makes things a lot clearer. Fæ (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned it's already covered by WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. I think you're reading rather too heavily into an explaination offered merely as courtesy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and remember to avoid reading your comments heavily in future. I note that ROUGH CONSENSUS (which is a section of DGFA as I referred to above) says nothing about "reputation", so until it gets changed I'll continue to expect AFDs to be closed on the basis of arguments put forward rather than the perceived reputation of editors. Fæ (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this to your talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simply notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per previous keep notes. trainfan01 talk 20:15, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

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.