Talk:YouTube fame

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

speedy keep, 5 August 2017, see discussion.
no consensus, 17 April 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Google Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles

Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Google To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here.
Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale
Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback
Maintain : This WikiProject
Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs
Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products
Other :
- Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...)
- create:
- Help the Google article for a good article status
- Improve the Outline of Google
- Get more members using :
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}}
- Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

Expand and improve, don't hate. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism?[edit]

Interesting concept for an article, but are you sure the term "YouTube fame" isn't a neologism? All the sources seem to be using it as a regular phrase, not a proper noun. So might this be better with a different title, or merged into a related article (such as Viral video)? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a notable neologism. See [1]. Does this belong in the Youtube article? Viral video article? Both? Or should it stand alone? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that search result proves that it's a notable neologism, just that it's a structurally frequent pair of words. I could get just as many results searching for something like "the tree" or "salad bowl". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are articles on the subjects you mention: tree and salad bowl (although not the dicdef). I think this subject may be independently notable and at the very least deserves some discussion rather than a quick to the draw redirect that doesn't at least merge the notable content not already present elsewhere. Is a viral video the same thing as youtbue fame? Are you saying Youtube fame isn't notable enough and is just a convenient pairing of the words Youtube and fame? I'm not sure I agree. And as frequent as it's used it still might be notable as for example dance mix, world view etc. It seems to have a distinct and notable meaning for a phenomenon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need another article on a topic already extensively covered by a string of other articles. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move it to User:Daniel Christensen/YouTube fame, delete or redirect this article, and let Daniel Christensen merge this stuff (if any is merge-able) into related articles? That seems like a solution that would work for everyone. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get wider input first. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search has led me to similar results; it appears that the term is notable enough to warrant its own article, as revolting as I find the concept (unless bacon is involved, of course). Drmies (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't think it's a "term", it's just being used as a phrase. Anyway, it looks like this is going to have to go to AfD sooner or later. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But does the phrase describe soemthing notable? It seems to me it does. So I'm open on the renaming issue and how best to include it, but I think the subject of Youtube fame, and I don't really know what else to call it, is notable. SHould we put it through AfD and see what people think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think AfD is the best way to go. As I said in my first message here, I'm not totally averse to just renaming the article and keeping the content, if people agree that it's covering a phenomenon that's notable and not covered in other articles....but the specific term "YouTube fame" isn't notable, and the article shouldn't just be about YouTube to the exclusion of other viral sites. Anyway, I'm about to run, but if there hasn't been a major change in consensus here by tonight then I might start the AfD to try to get more input on what to do with this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences[edit]

This specific topic has a lot of media coverage and certainly does not fit into viral video; which is more of uncanny videos becomming famous by chance. This article as you can see is quite focused on incidents and such regarding the subject; a topic which is heavily published. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is so not appropriate to redirect to viral video. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, other than the introductory paragraph (which is general information that can be merged into viral video or the introduction of List of internet celebrities), the rest of the article is only a list of examples/incidents, which would make it appropriate to merge into one of the related list articles. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class[edit]

Can I leave long enough to go to my next class without worrying about what you restless Wikipedians will do to my shouldn't-be-redirected article? Remember, expand and improve, don't hate. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember WP:OWN. Don't worry, nothing is going to happen quickly; the worst that will happen is an AfD will start while you are away, and if that happens you'll have at least 5 days to deal with it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks[edit]

User:DreamGuy undid all the links I made to this page; of which there were quite a few, adding to the apparentnss of it's notability. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of links that you add to this article doesn't prove anything about notability; it just proves how much you want other people to see it. There was nothing wrong with DreamGuy's removal of links, he was expecting the article to be deleted or redirected. Since this is going to have to go to AfD, it would be best if you don't restore the links until a decision has been reached there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

Well there are an awful lot of potential wikilinks to this subject [2]. And I'm most worried about DC missing class. Please don't fall behind. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if it's English class. Do NOT miss English class, or you'll end up like...well, you know. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't; is that like part of a saying or something? Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll end up like ChildofMidnight, scrounging for a living and writing stubs on Danish architects just to bring home some bacon. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And drinking milk out of a square. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP has an established process for nominating pages for deletion[edit]

I suggest it should be followed. Dlabtot (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what's going to happen. We were discussing it here before taking it to AfD; there's nothing wrong with getting some input from editors involved before blindly charging in to AfD. I have already said I intend to open an AfD on this, I just haven't sat down and done it yet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube fame. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once[edit]

Seen any effort put forth to improve articles where AfD is being considered. Instead of talking about how "well it could be notable if" and "well it is a highly covered topic", bloody improve the article! Add to it; I basically own all my articles not by choice but because no one else ever edits them; they just bitch. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not how to improve the article, the question is whether it even deserves to exist; that's the whole purpose of AfD. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept[edit]

Great, now lets put the links back and not delete them. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Joseph Mattheson[edit]

AKA lemonsters08 and mightyducks94. This kid seems to have gained some recegnition among VHS collectors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.199.204 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]