Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF Tick Tock (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy keep as pointy nomination. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IDF Tick Tock

It's one of billion videos on youtube, there are over thousands of videos that got over 1 millions news and were commented by reliable news-agencies, but it still doesn't mean they should have an article on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:EVENT, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia:Recentism, Wikipedia:Puffery that has taken place in the entry in order to have a ground for keeping it. And it differs from such article like this because aforementioned article describes a phenomena of eruption, not just one minor video created by an unknown person and then uploaded to youtube. Mentioning it in the song's article is more than enough, since it's just another viral video based on this song, no major events happened because of that video, I don't how can be an article for that? That's ridiculous. Dramadeur (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Since this article has just been through an AfD, it was closed as No consensus three days ago, and the nominator seems to harp on the exact same arguments that spurred that nomination I see no reason why we should go a second round on this now. The nominator created the account for the sole purpose of making this nomination (checkuser, anyone?). __meco (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:good faith to assume that the user who created the second nomination is me. Just because I nominated the article the first time. You appear to have forget that several times in the first conversation I clearly and specifically said "if the community decides the article should be kept I will support that as I have done in every AfD I've been involved in". There were others who felt the article should be deleted not just me so do not assume that we're one in the same. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as above.SPNic (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per previous discussion was no consensus. I believe it should have been keep but what ever. The event asserts notability. There is no need for the second nomination, especially not so soon after. (I dont believe this is a sock puppet, why would such an active/experienced editor jeopardize their account?) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I actually think wikipedia articles about popular viral videos are a good idea, provided they get significant media coverage. My personal favorite is United Breaks Guitars. It did not change the world, or, in the nom's terms "no major events happened because of that video". True, The video did not bring democratic government to the Palestinian territories or make the Hamas leadership into peaceniks. It just got covered by major TV networks and newspapers. And made me and several million other viewers laugh. AMuseo (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep although I was responsible for the first nomination, I've accepted there is support for this article and although I think content like this is not suitable for wikipedia... the community spoke and there wasn't sufficient opinion to delete it. Therefore IMO this AfD serves no purpose as the situation and information of the article has not changed thus why would opinion change? The last AfD was pretty lengthy and that reached no consensus and thus this new AfD is disruptive. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to have rather more going for it than the usual 'viral video' we get here. (I must say my initial reaction on seeing 'viral video' was 'oh not again', and I hurried to the article before reading the !votes - as is my wont - in order not to be influenced. I came back decided to go against the swim and oppose deletion. Fooled again...) (Semi-relevant comment: Wouldn't it be nice if some of the Israeli Govt and some of Hamas got together and made a video? Trouble is, leadership loses sense of humour.) Peridon (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2010 (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.