Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Household Hacker

Household Hacker

Household Hacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Household hacker is, apparently, a group of youtube hoaxers who "teach" their viewers to do things that are impossible, and have been shown to be impossible, such as running a TV set off of a AAA battery (impossible) or charging your ipod with an onion (proven impossible on Mythbusters as noted in the article). Household Hacker fails to meet the notability for web guidelines, as it is not mentioned in any secondary sources. Given this, it is therefore impossible to point out in the article that all (or nearly all) of the HH videos are hoaxes, since this would be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemoWilliams (talk • contribs)

In addition the page is an orphan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemoWilliams (talk • contribs)

• Keep - I am about to head to bed, so specific sources will have to wait till tomorrow. However, I would like to point out that neither making hoax videos or being an orphan are valid criteria for deletion. The only actual reason cited is "not mentioned in any secondary sources" which is false. A GNews search reveals coverage in several sources. (I'll state which ones I think are significant sources & why tomorrow.) The Household Hacker videoshave been tested by ABC News and (according to the nom) MythBusters. The fact that major sources are testing their "hoax videos" is clear evidence that their videos are notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - This does not sound very notable at all. Vltava 68 06:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability are not about whether something sounds notable, but whether it is notable. Determining that involves looking at the numbers, depths, and provenances of the sources available. This involves more than simply reading the article and having a subjective impression of how the subject sounds. Notability is not such a subjective evaluation. Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioned was incorrect, however, in looking through your cites, other than the ABC article about the onion/IPod video, the mentions are only in passing, and I still would argue that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion in WP. In addition my point about the impossibility of writing a substantive article without original research stands. It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of electrical knowledge, for example, that it is impossible to run a plasma TV on a AAA battery, however, I can't find a cite for it. Also, peanut butter does not remove scratches from CDs, but again, no way to cite without original research. I quote WP:Notability -- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" While the ABC article gives an in-depth debunking of the onion/IPod charging hoax, it does not address the subject of Household Hacker itself in detail, and none of the other sources do, either. RemoWilliams (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further rationale/comment on sources: There is no reason the article has to debunk, or even mention, every video the channel has released. Thus, the inability to find sources to debunk every last one is not a valid reason for deletion. Indeed, an encyclopedic article would be far better served by not going into detail about individual videos except for the most notable ones (such as the onion thing). I have checked and it appears Mythbusters have debunked at least there of their videos: iPod onion, High-def speaker for under a $, & Hover shoes. I see no reason that Mythbusters can't be sited as a reliable source. Here are some other sources:
• ABC News story on iPod onion - clearly in depth coverage
• Lavanguardia story on iPod onion - attempts to explain the popularity despite the obvious fakery
• unrelated InfoWorld story - doesn't count as significant coverage but can be used to reference the HH channel's number one ranking for that month
  • Forbes story with same info ad InfoWorld story
• LATimes story - decent sized mention in a larger article
• Salon.com story - technically a blog post, but still a RS (IMO) for the purpose of reviewing the videos
• Most of the remaining RS coverage is trivial in nature. There are countless internet reviews of their stuff - most would not count as reliable sources, of course, but I am sure there are a few that would if one bothered to sift through all the junk.

It short, there aren't an huge abundance of sources and most coverage is about the onion video specifically. However, our guidelines only require two significant sources and that is clearly reached. You could say that technically this only makes the onion video notable. However, it would be silly to say the onion video is notable, but the guys who produced it aren't - it is much much better to cover the information on their page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about the onion video, however, I'd argue that even that video, the most widely cited one, is not notable in the long-term, merely due to a couple of substantive articles, and several trivial mentions. I disagree that the LA times mention was significant, as it tells us nothing new about HH, other than to mention the onion video. In fact the only thing that seems to be known about HH themselves is that they are anonymous, and their videos have received a lot of views. I agree that Mythbusters is a reliable source, but, again, the shows did not concentrate on HH themselves, but their claims. I think the article could be improved somewhat, with your sourcing work, but would still argue that it is impossible to do in-depth coverage of the topic without original research. RemoWilliams (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep ABC News and Forbes are "multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage" besides the 7 million or so YouTobe hits and other coverage. A good hoax does not have to be true to be notable. Edison (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The forbes mention is a one-liner, in an article about the queen. The ABC news article does not address the subject of the article at all, much less in detail. It addresses the onion hoax and only the onion hoax. RemoWilliams (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with your characterization of the significance of the coverage in the sources. The coverage is significant. ABC covers the onion hoax, and attributes it to the subject of the article. The hoax would not exist without its creator. Edison (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Which part do you disagree with? I agree unreservedly that the ABC article is an in-depth look at the onion hoax, but the forbes article can hardly be called significant. Also, the stated policy is: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." [emphasis added]. The WP article is about Household Hacker. How can we possibly write a good article about Household Hacker, when the only significant coverage we have is of one of their videos? And does the ABC article directly address HH, in detail?

• Keep. Much as I dislike pop culture nonsense like this, the amount of coverage in the media (I could care less how many views they have on youtube) makes the notability clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of articles doesn't do anything to make the coverage more significant, and it still would remain impossible to write a detailed article about Household Hacker without original research.RemoWilliams (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)