Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (5th nomination)

Magibon

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Magibon
• Articles for deletion/Magibon (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Magibon (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Magibon (5th nomination)

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

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

This has gone through four deletion discussions, I admit; first two were "no consensus" and the next two were "keep". However, the 4th discussion was in 2009; since then, I see absolutely no sign that the person is notable. WP:15M applies. (The person might have appeared notable back in 2008 and 2009; I don't think the person was notable, but at least justifiably could be viewed as notable back then.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Sorry, still notable, per analysis of her as a phenomenon in Wired, Slate and Gawker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanwallace (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What "strong reject[ion]" was there? Even though the 3rd/4th discussions resulted in clearly "keep" results, there was no huge split. Not only that, but I can't recall a single instance in all of the deletion discussions that I've read of someone being considered notable after yielding 0 Google News hits for two straight years.[1][2] My argument is that she was not notable then and not notable now, and that the test of time has shown that she's not notable. That's not "with the same arguments"; that's the use of new evidence of lack of notability. --Nlu (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You're not presenting any new evidence. The general rule here is that notability does not expire because Wikipedia is not the news. This means that we cover women like Agathoclia, Balbina and Cleopatra even though they haven't been in the news for centuries. A source such as The Japan Times is good evidence of notability indefinitely and that's never going to change. Please see WP:DEL which explains, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Not for Agathoclia, but Balbina[3] and Cleopatra[4] will continue to receive news hits (some of which are false positives, for certain, but most are not) thousands of years later because they were notable and important. Magibon essentially drew one spurt of coverage and is no longer covered. That's 15 minutes of fame as far as I'm concerned. --Nlu (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete and immediate capital punishment for the linkspam zombies.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete seems to have had a fleeting moment of coverage but nothing actually came of it. Note that the closing admin can and will ignore any votes based on "It's been on AFD before!", as last AFD was well over a year ago and we all know consensus does change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Magibon is an important part of Internet history and language, serving a roll some what like "MY Mother the Car" in television. I would note that while there are no current mentions of her on Google News, there are over 60 thousand mentions on Google. I also have noted that "My Mother the Car" is only mentioned three times on Google News, but over half a million on Google. There are many 1960s television shows that were more popular than "My Mother the Car" but it is not nearly as important to know about them, because they do not symbolize anything. So please keep this great symbol of YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisrich1 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Nothing here undercuts the well-reasoned and justified keep conclusions of the prior AfDs, and WP:NTEMP is one of the hallmarks that makes Wikipedia, a big-as-you-need-it-to-be WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia, the special resource that it is.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Once notable, it remains notable. I further respectfully request that the nominator think again before nominating well referenced articles for which there is already a consensus to keep. Francis Bond (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep (^m^) Shii (tock) 10:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - After 4 nominations and now a fifth with the exact same result its perhaps time to start seeinga pattern.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The first two did not have "exact same result." And again, while it may be heading to "keep," I must say that I am watching this result with disgust. This article shouldn't exist; the fact that it will continue to do so is beyond the bounds of good sense. --Nlu (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Still it is a strong indication that most people dont share you disgust for this article. Quite the opposit.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is not this last comment an indicator of what watching Magibon does to your brain? --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable enough to be a featured as a Know Your Meme 2008 Video along with other notable internet meme trackers (ie in the same notoriety level as of Numa Numa, Epic Beard Man, Boxxy etc.) Guerberj (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)