Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cara Hartmann

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. This AfD moved from a discussion of an obviously non-notable BLP, to a more debated article about a viral video. Along the way there was a procedural close of keep which the closing admin switched to relist upon being prompted, which was a good move.

The notability guidelines are operative here, specifically the GNG and also WP:Notability (web). In the delete camp, Metal.lunchbox invokes the latter in terms of the often ephemeral nature of web content, while SheepNotGoats invokes the former with close attention to whether or not the coverage (which obviously exists) is truly "significant." A Quest For Knowledge responds to these points with links to sources, but does not really offer a policy argument. In general a case is not made that this viral video meets our notability guidelines, and the objections from delete !voters on that front are not well responded to.

All that said, this video has definitely attracted a lot of attention and is popular (it's funny!). The creator might well go on to some sort of career in entertainment given the popularity of this video. Were that to happen, there would be no prejudice against recreation of the basic content now being deleted in one form or another. I'm also happy to userfy it if someone is so inclined, but for now the discussion seems to me to warrant a deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Hartmann

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

Article is about an individual who fails WP:GNG; she is apparently known for a parody youtube movie. The movie has minor coverage in mid/low quality sources but nothing substantive and doesn't seem to be particularly notable amongst the hundreds of youtube videos/memes mentioned in passing by news outlets each year (i.e. it too fails WP:GNG)

Beyond the video no other sources have any information

Content may deserve a brief mention in a list article about internet parodies, but I can't find one that fits for the moment. Errant ^(chat!) 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources have been listed on the article's talk page, and simply need to be integrated. Article is no longer about the individual, but about the video -- it's been moved to EHarmony cat video and rewritten & reorganized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the person is not notable, but the viral video is. So I renamed the article "EHarmony cat video" and we've begun editing the article to focus on the video, not the person. As for sources, a few secondary sources are used in the article itself, and I added several more to the talk page. They just need to be integrated into the article, that's all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The video is not notable either - see WP:NOTNEWS. Sourcing is vague at best, maybe one or two low-mid quality news articles and then some trivial mentions in lesser sources. All dating from the same day. It has no enduring notability. --Errant ^(chat!) 06:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm familiar with WP:NOTNEWS but it doesn't apply in this case. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This has been provided. The video has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure what you're looking for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The video is funny but it is not notable. aside from a description of the video itself the article is unsourcable. There is no reason to believe that people in the future will have a reason to read about this. THere is a funny video that gets popular on Youtube every week, almost none of them are notable, momentary popularity may seem like notability but it is not. see WP:Notability (web) specifically, ' "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," ' Remember that notability mean impact. It is true that some sources noticed the video but they simply describe it say that its popular and embed the video, they otherwise don't have much to say about it. They're likely just trying to capture a little of the videos ephemeral popularity. It is pretty much inconceivable that the passage of time will do anything but make this topic vanish into complete irrelevance, down the memory hole. The creator of the video is herself certainly not notable. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't true. Here are some sources which describe the video in-depth.[1][2][3] Maybe you don't think that this video deserves coverage, but it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just for the record, it has been established repeatedly across multiple fora, including (but not limited to) WP:RSN, that we don't consider the Daily Mail a reliable source for our standards. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reliablity heavily depends upon context. Sports Illustrated, for example, is a great source on tennis or basketball, but a terrible source on general relativity. I think that in the case of a viral video, this source is more than acceptable. AFAIK, none of the information in the article is contentious/controversial. I mean, you're not seriously suggesting that the Daily Mail is wrong and that this video doesn't exist, that it's not about cats, etc.? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Mail is probably an OK source in this case. But it's not a very compelling source - an anonymous video exists, got some hits, and was given a bit of media coverage over a couple of days. I suggest that if the parodies become a meme - or anything else springs up showing enduring interest - then we can reassess. But for the moment the media reports basically amount to "it exists". The tabloid media report on hundreds of these trivial things a week and the reason we have "NOTNEWS" is to avoid filling up Wikipedia with each and every one :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly fails GNG. In each of the independent sources listed, the video gets the following amount of coverage:

Daily Mail - 18 sentences total (of which only 12 are about the video)
CTV news - 8 sentences
Ditigal Life - 7 sentences
Trivial mentions:

CBS News - 3 sentences
Sun News - 3 sentences
Social Times - 2 sentences

The only one that comes close to meeting the "significant coverage" stipulation of GNG is the Daily Mail article, and even that's a stretch (especially in light of StrangePasserby's comment). If 6 months from now, this video becomes a permeating meme, fine, write an article then. But today, it fails our requirements. Seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. I don't understand why people have to run and create an article for every little thing that gets mentioned in the news one day. I wish WP had a rule that we had to wait X amount of time after something is mentioned the news before it can have an article, so we don't have to waste time having these crystal ball AFD discussions. SheepNotGoats (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I provided three sources which cover the video as whole and not in passing.[4][5][6] You've seemed to have missed a couple. I note that SheepNotGoats failed to address my comment that reliability depends on context.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but I went by the sources that were provided in the article. And I "failed to address" your comment because, if you look at the timestamps, your comment was posted a whole 2 minutes before mine, so I didn't even see it until after I had finished writing mine. But anyway, I see no need to address the issue on whether or not the Daily Mail is considered reliable, because my issue with it is that it doesn't provide particularly significant coverage to begin with (with a whopping 12 sentences). Now, you may want to consider not badgering every single "delete" comment. It doesn't make you look good. SheepNotGoats (talk)

If one is going to vote in an AfD, they should perform some due dilegence to research the topic. I posted new sources on the article talk page yesterday,[8][9] and also made reference to it ("a few secondary sources are used in the article itself, and I added several more to the talk page") in this discussion yesterday.[10] I'm sorry that you feel badgered. But in order to reach concensus regarding deletion, these are the types of issues that need to be discussed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no evidence that this is being covered as anything except a funny news story, and Wikipedia is not the newspaper. Wikipedia should not be the catchall for trivia that only gets a few tabloid articles and insigificant or nonexistent coverage from everything else. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is for Wikinews, maybe, but certainly not an encyclopedia. What may be proportionately notable on the internet is usually, including in this case, disproportionately non-notable in the "real world". In other words, just because it's a big deal on the internet doesn't make it a big deal. In terms of WP:NOT, I'm citing points 2.3, 2.9, 2.10. Digging into the problem with this article more I would argue WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:ROUTINE all would deny this article a spot here. I think it more appropriate Wikinews cover this event. Naturally time could bear me out to be incorrect; but I would posit this "event" be gone and forgotten by all but a few web trolls (not trying to point anyone out specific here) in but a few months. 173.89.18.89 (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At request, I've reverted my closure (which was a procedural keep on the basis of a major change in the article title to EHarmony cat video) and relisted. I have, as I said, no opinion on the article in either version. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Too early to tell if notable. This seems like an article that should be allowed to stay for now, but then given a natural burial in a few months as it most likely slips into obscurity/non-notability. After all, notability is not temporary. Carson (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the initial decision to close (as keep) was reverted and the article relisted, it appears that the AfD notice on the article was removed after the close and was never reinstated (until I did so just now). Not sure what the procedural implications are of having an article listed in AfD for a week without a notice on the page, but at least the notice is there now. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was initially inclined to recommend deletion for lack of notability, but the cited sources (other than YouTube) appear to be independent, reliable, and significant. I'm still a bit unsure of the wider significance (if any) of this video, which is why I'm saying "weak keep". Commenting on Crtrue (Carson)'s comment above, my understanding is that WP:NTEMP doesn't mean "temporary notability is not real notability", but more like "once notable, always notable". Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[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.