This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjanag (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 17 April 2009 (re and explanation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:27, 17 April 2009 by Rjanag (talk | contribs) (re and explanation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)YouTube fame
- YouTube fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Bringing this to AfD after a lengthy discussion at the article's talkpage. First of all, the title of this article is a neologism: while the words "youtube" and "fame" come up next to each other a lot in a Google search, that doesn't mean it's a new proper noun; it's just a common phrase, like "birthday party". So even if this were kept, it should be moved to a more general term like "internet fame" or "internet celebrity", and not be youtube-specific. But I, and several others at the talk page, think all the content here can be moved into related articles such as viral video or List of internet phenomena#People (given that most of this article is just a list of examples anyway). While the nominator claims that the article has unique information that can't be merged to those other articles, I don't see what that information is. More input is needed. rʨanaɢ /contribs 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism of a topic already well covered by other articles, such as viral video, which the term could redirect to (or just plain YouTube for that matter). DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO, although I don't think this is even a term. Redirect to YouTube, but rescue anything useful and put it in viral video. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep Google search , and potential wikilinks indicate this article is appropriate and needed. A rename or move doesn't require an AfD. I'm going to call for UN intervention and blue helmetted Dutch special forces to defend this new entry from the deletionist forces. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said in my nom statement, abundance of ghits doesn't prove that this is a "new word" rather than just a common phrase. "Pepperoni pizza" gets way more ghits than "youtube fame" (, compare *29,400 to 5,980 without quotes, 104 to 96 with quotes—and that's google news, not google web), but it's still a redirect. rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where would you have this entry redirect? Pepperoni pizza is one type of pizza. YouTube fame doesn't seem a clear type of anything, but if there were an article on "Internet fame", I suppose it could be merged there. Of course merges don't require AfDs. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merges and redirects don't require AfD, but they require a consensus that the article itself does not belong. Since there was no consensus at the talk page, I had no choice but to bring it here. If consensus here is to delete, we can implement that by redirecting or merging, which in this case is basically the same as deleting. rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where would you have this entry redirect? Pepperoni pizza is one type of pizza. YouTube fame doesn't seem a clear type of anything, but if there were an article on "Internet fame", I suppose it could be merged there. Of course merges don't require AfDs. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)