Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kony 2012: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:23, 7 March 2012

Kony 2012

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

'KeepPlease do not delete this page. I saw the Kony 2012 video and visited the website. All very worthy, but is it genuine? For independent confirmation I come to Wikipedia. If anyone has doubts about the validity or truthfulness of the content of the video, let them post it here. I'm not very familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, and yes I did just create this account to post here, but I would offer that as support for the idea that Kony 2012 *is* a notable event (albeit emerging). Redirect this page to invisible Children by all means, but please provide a means for checking up on what the video has to say. Josephtalbot (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a web movement that has absolutely no coverage yet to discern notability, particularly the guidelines at WP:WEB. The video may have 4 million views, but this is not the metric by which we discern the notability of web content. WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK also hold, as we are not a means (as the various IP messages on the talk page during the time the article was up for speedy & prod show) to promote a movement, no matter how altruistic the cause may be. What Joseph Kony has done is terrible. However, creating an article on this one film in the mere hours it has existed is jumping the gun. Deletion is my main goal. However, I believe a proper merge to Invisible Children Inc would suffice. —Ryulong (竜龙) 05:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just a note: The nobility of this campaign is not enough of a reason to give the video its own page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a social network, and this article is not notable. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It has garnered enough press about the Invisible Children organization to be notable.Keep Remember, Wikipedia does not have firm rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Common sense tells me that this is notable as is. Jhunt47 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis video has been public for less than 36, if I understand correctly. The press is just noticing its viral nature and cultural significance. Some press is emerging.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even then, is it notable on its own merits?—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I do believe it'll pass our notability guidelines once the US media has woken up, although at the moment, the sources available appear insufficient. Will reassess the situation tomorrow. —Dark 06:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - large response and coverage so far. -down load ׀ message 06:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "large coverage" yet. Just two news pieces, thus far.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems likely that this will become far more notable in the coming days. It seems there should be a stay of execution till at least that time. if it does not become sufficiently notable it should at the least be merged with the Invisible Children article as it has much relevance to that article.Nome3000 (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This template must be substituted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly not a single purpose account, account over 3 years old, not a ton of edits, but quite a few and none have been on this topic before this week, please don't falsely label others you disagree with--174.115.163.131 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The video may be significant to internet culture in the future. I agree a merge with Invisible Children is a better solution than an outright delation User:dpac007 6:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- What may happen is not up for Wikipedia to cover.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has been spreading through social media for at least the past 18 hours (when I first saw it), and it has gone viral. It is very hard to ignore something 2-3 days old with 4 million video views and 3.5 million shares on Facebook. In the coming days it will just explode even more, and yes I know about WP:CRYSTAL, but at the rate it is going, it would be near impossible for it to just stop in its tracks and be forgotten about. Sentra246 (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it has been spreading, does not mean Wikipedia should be one of those venues.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryulong, you know that its social network popularity is not its only notability as I've already mentioned to you on numerous occasions. Can you please therefore stop insisting that this is its only cause for notability. As it has at least a small amount of notability from these articles it then isn't contradicting WP:CRYSTAL to wait for more articles which will inevitably follow. As for its sudden popularity, that under the guidelines does take a back seat but is not to be seen as irrelevant. Its popularity only enhances its notability not undermines it. I think common sense should be applied in this instance.Nome3000 (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the amount of coverage that it's already received so quickly, which looks to put it right on the edge of notability, and since it seems clear that more coverage will be forthcoming, I see no reason to delete this article. I think this falls under WP:RAPID. An AfD nomination made a week after the release of the video, if no more news had been produced, would have garnered more traction for delete, but I don't see the purpose of this AfD at this point in time. Silverseren^C 06:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SecondedNome3000 (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here Here! Jhunt47 (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't some rally. This is a discussion on whether or not the page should be retained. If I'm wrong in my assumption and it is notable, then it's clearly not notable on its own and should just be something mentioned on Invisible Children Inc.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's pretty obvious that this is meeting notability guidelines even as we discuss it. —Nightstallion 07:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant event, web coverage is currently present. Should be kept independent of Invisible Children Inc. for documentation of reception (ie. affects and responses). Similarly we do not merge articles like Friday (Rebecca Black song) with Rebecca Black nor do we merge episodes of South park with the main article. --Cs california (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are notable unto themselves. This topic does not seem notable unto itself yet.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Contradicting every vote does not mean said vote is not counted. DarthBotto_talk•cont 08:23, 07 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. These are !votes, because polling is not substitution for discussion. AfD !votes are assessed based on the quality of arguments used, not the number of supporters and opposers. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works" - now there's a fucking assumption, considering I've been editing for five years. I understand very well that quantity does not supersede the strength of a motion or the validity of an argument, but a single editor contradicting nearly all the explanations for an opposition does not necessarily mean the motion is vindicated. DarthBotto_talk•cont 20:08, 07 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I personally doubt the entry's notability, but since this is a current event and coverage is still unfolding, a clearer indication of the notability should develop over the next week or two. In the meantime, it seems wiser to wait a few days before deleting the article than to delete now just to potentially recreate it next week when more information is available. Wait a while longer, and the proper course of action should become clear. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This subject has gone viral and gained massive publicity and is directly correlated with the late 2011 adviser operations against the LRA. Perhaps the nominator should research a little deeper? DarthBotto_talk•cont 07:50, 07 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any arguments for deleting this will become invalid within the next week, if not day. Is it really worth deleting now just to have restart later? The techniques used to make this go viral are something that I suspect will be studied in years to come. - Lithos12 (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This template must be substituted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly not a single purpose account, account over 6 months old, handful of edits, but none have been on this topic--174.115.163.131 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New news article here. Silverseren^C 07:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article just informs people of the historical movement that is taking place right now, it's not being used as a soapbox. If you delete it now you'll just have to put it back up later when it's all over the news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikig22 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This template must be substituted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Invisible Children Inc, and wait and see if it gains sufficient specific coverage to merit its own article later. WP:CRYSTAL applies. And Ryulong, please stop answering back to every !voter you disagree with - it makes you look obsessed, and it makes the page hard to read. It's not like you can remove people's comments by hectoring them. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is becoming more and more popular and notable by the hour. Wikipedia is about the world we live in and it's history - if this isn't worthy then I dont know what is. Savvi72 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to have press coverage, but might still make more sense to merge with Joseph Kony or Invisible Children Inc and redirect. Not every campaign needs an article, even if the campaign gets press coverage: the question is, who is really notable, the campaigner, the campaigned-against, or the actual campaign itself? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under this logic we wouldn't ever have an article on a campaign. In this instance, it's quite clear that the campaign is getting the news coverage, likely because of its popularity and how it's trending. Silverseren^C 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:NOBLE ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 13:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't address the news coverage, closer should not consider this vote when closing. Silverseren^C 13:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closer should make up their own mind, in accordance with established procedure. Why do you think you can boss them around? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out something for the closer is not bossing them around. Silverseren^C 13:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL please. The reason I gave is more than acceptable. Do you want me to copycat what that wikipage says? ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 17:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I expected, here's your news coverage:

Stop Kony, yes. But don’t stop asking questions - The Independent

Uganda: Invisible Children's Jason Russell on KONY 2012 - AllAfrica

Make Kony Famous - Sydney Morning Herald

Australian support amasses for Kony 2012 - NineMSN

Kony 2012: Invisible Children Documentary Sheds Light On Uganda Conflict - The Huffington Post

Internet campaign backing the arrest of Ugandan military leader, Joseph Kony, becomes online hit - The Voice Online

KONY 2012: Campaign shedding light on Uganda conflict an online success - Metro

Stop Kony: Invisible Children’s ‘Kony 2012’ to Find Justice for Child Soldiers - International Business Times

I think my point is made. Silverseren^C 13:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one's a no-brainer. Bloody deletionists with nothing better to do. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure, the campaign is young, but awareness of it has exploded in the past day or so and taken the internet by storm. Countless numbers of people use Wikipedia as a source of information, and undoubtedly many will come to Wikipedia looking for information on this cause. I feel that to delete this article would be a disservice to the noble cause of Kony 2012 campaign and to anybody who comes looking for more information. If the Kony 2012 article must be removed, I implore whomever has the final say to merge it with the Invisible Children article rather than delete it entirely. I echo the above sentiments that a stay of execution should be granted as the campaign becomes more well-known and picks up steam. - Botulizard

Comment Some more:

Kony 2012 takes over Reddit in today's digest - The Daily Dot

Toronto activists join campaign to arrest Ugandan guerilla leader Joseph Kony - CityNews

Can social media help hunt down a Ugandan warlord? - CBC News

Stop Kony 2012: Rhianna Backs Hunt for Ruthless Uganda War Criminal - International Business Times

And these are just from the past hour. Silverseren^C 14:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere, whatever, close this AfD. I wish deletionists would stop AfDing every article about viral stuff just after it happens rather than having a proper editorial discussion about where to merge it to while we wait for more substantial source material to come in. And lo and behold, more substantial source material has come in since this AfD has started. Why is there such a rush to delete everything which might not end up being notable for its own article? This is not content that should be removed, it is sourced, it is neutral, arguments about soapbox/noble are invalid imo. Have any of you ever considered what it makes Wikipedia look like to the rest of the world when every article about something viral (which many people are clearly going to search) always has "this is being considered for deletion" in a big red box at the top? - filelake shoe 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was confused from people talking about The KONY thing and looked it up on wikipedia, where I found what I was looking for. I guess I'm not the only one. So keep or merge, but don't delete! --MarsmanRom (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is also opposition to the movement. Source that cites other sources: We got trouble. - Visible Children - KONY 2012 Criticism, if someone could develop that further. -- Cmartincaj (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been working on a criticisms section as that seems more appropriate than opposition. Most of the sources are critical of the campaigns approach rather than its intended goals. I agree that this needs further development.Nome3000 (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I think the size of the debate over this article after the video has been up for less than two days says something about its "notability". Merge, possibly; delete, no. The fact that there's already a sizable schism in the community, and actual criticism with legitimate points, for this video/topic serves as a reason we should keep the article, so that both the main points and the criticism can be discussed in an unbiased manner for anyone who's going to look it up - and they are going to look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.192.41 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than 150 references from news articles which a good amount are reliable published news sources. Nocturnal781 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The topic itself is worth a mention but does not merit its own article. —Entropy (T/C) 19:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Invisible Children Inc -- very little information about the film itself, and more about the drive of its awareness. If someone could expand the article to provide more info about the film itself, then I can call for keeping it. -- azumanga (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable already. Covered by many including the government. Deletionists get mad, the article is here to stay. :) 65.34.3.144 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it definitely meets notability guidelines. I'd say more, but then Ryulong would badger me about my opinions. Tavix | Talk 20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done it in hours so don't fucking point it out. It does appear that the subject can be covered on Wikipedia. I just do not think that it requires its own separate page. This crap might fizzle out before the week ends.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as can be. KING GRIM LOL YO WHATS UP (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :({{Find sources|Kony 2012}})
-Please do not delete this page.  I saw the Kony 2012 video and visited the website. All very worthy, but is it genuine? For independent confirmation I come to Wikipedia. If anyone has doubts about the validity or truthfulness of the content of the video, let them post it here.  I'm not very familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, and yes I did just create this account to post here, but I would offer that as support for the idea that Kony 2012 *is* a notable event (albeit emerging). Redirect this page to invisible Children by all means, but please provide a means for checking up on what the video has to say. [[User:Josephtalbot|Josephtalbot]] ([[User talk:Josephtalbot|talk]]) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''Please do not delete this page.  I saw the Kony 2012 video and visited the website. All very worthy, but is it genuine? For independent confirmation I come to Wikipedia. If anyone has doubts about the validity or truthfulness of the content of the video, let them post it here.  I'm not very familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, and yes I did just create this account to post here, but I would offer that as support for the idea that Kony 2012 *is* a notable event (albeit emerging). Redirect this page to invisible Children by all means, but please provide a means for checking up on what the video has to say. [[User:Josephtalbot|Josephtalbot]] ([[User talk:Josephtalbot|talk]]) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 This is a web movement that has absolutely no coverage ''yet'' to discern [[WP:N|notability]], particularly the guidelines at [[WP:WEB]]. The video may have 4 million views, but this is not the metric by which we discern the notability of web content. [[WP:NOTSOAPBOX]] and [[WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK]] also hold, as we are not a means (as the various IP messages on the talk page during the time the article was up for speedy & prod show) to promote a movement, no matter how altruistic the cause may be. What [[Joseph Kony]] has done is terrible. However, creating an article on this one film in the mere hours it has existed is jumping the gun. Deletion is my main goal. However, I believe a proper merge to [[Invisible Children Inc]] would suffice. —[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryulong</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">竜龙</font>]]) 05:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)