Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 20

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

20 July 2006

Pirate Party of the United States

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Party of the United States

Was initially deleted because the party didn't exist back then. It *does* exist now -- http://www.pirate-party.us/ -- and since it's been getting a fair amount of international attention, I'd wager it's notable enough for an article...? —Nightstallion (?) 13:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse and keep deleted. The website existed then. Anybody with a couple bucks can create a website. Doesn't constitute notability. Running candidates and getting press coverage would constitute notability. The Pirate Party of Sweden has attracted significant attention, but this article is not about the Swedish party. Can you provide any citations of significant attention to the American offshoot? Fan-1967 13:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not too strong in my belief that this article should be restored, I was mainly wondering whether it was notable enough now; significant attraction (in the form of press coverage) I've found would be: Wired, out-law, The Inquirer, DVD-Recordable.org, p2pnet.net, slashdot. —Nightstallion (?) 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• For the most part, not exactly "non-trivial" reports (they amount to "the Pirate Party is trying to form an American spinoff"), and most of those really don't qualify as reliable sources (p2pnet is not exactly the New York Times). The out-law article is about the French spinoff, not US. Fan-1967 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Relist - This has made the news, and it would be good to get a wider consensus on if it's presently notable as a minor party in the United States. --Improv 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ampfea

This page was marked for speedy deletion, basically because the first version of the article was a bit vague, and because the community's web site is currently unavailable due to bandwidth and cost considerations.

After I polished the article (I didn't do the initial version) up a bit, it was deleted nevertheless. I have grave doubts whether anyone actually bothered to read the discussion on the talk page, and I would like to have this page undeleted, so we can actually have a chance to work on it. Creation and deletion happened in a 24-hour period, which is rather short. --SeverityOne 06:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. SeverityOne, it doesn't look "vague"; it looks like vanispamcruftisment for a site which as you note can't even afford to be in business. Sorry. Herostratus 08:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. WP:WEB would apply were this re-created and brought to AfD; I submit that it would not stand a chance. Just zis Guy you know? 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse my own deletion strongly As the deleting admin, allow me to make a point with the article's first sentence: "As a general concept, AMPFEA is a place. It is somewhere, anywhere, you can meet someone with a mutual interest, anyone, who is alive." I don't think I have ever seen a clearer case of an article lacking a clear context than that. The article was quite long, but no text I can imagine could redeem a supposed "encyclopedic" article that started with the above as its opening premise. Xoloz 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

TMNT Engine

Relist on AfD. This was deleted out of process. I agree with the deletion. I was about to put it up myself, but I don't see how this meets speedy criteria. It seems to have been deleted for lack of content, but it was a stub that had only been created a few minutes earlier and while it probably should be deleted on various other grounds (WP:SOFTWARE, for instance), that requires discussion. Ace of Sevens 03:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The first version I saw was a one-liner that included the words "in development". IMO that may well have pushed it over into the speedy category. Recreated version doesn't have that term, and it appears there is a version available for download now. (It's still a homemade game nobody's ever heard of, but an AFD wouldn't hurt.) Fan-1967 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• It has been recreated and listed on AFD, I think this request is moot. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Stifle. And I'm off to vote Delete, since it is vanispamcruftisement created by the game's author. Just zis Guy you know? 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

The article was in a state of edit war for the whole course of this contentious, 93 KB AfD. It was edited over 140 times during the discussion, with huge blocks of text being inserted, deleted, and reverted on less than a moment's notice. The version of the article which was finally deleted bears nearly no resemblance to the one which was originally nominated for deletion. Depending on when users viewed it, they could have seen an article anywhere from 9 KB to 27 KB in size, with anywhere from 7 to 12 sections, 5 to 12 references, and 0 to 42 footnotes.

The particular transitory version viewed makes a crucial difference to many of the justifications. A user calling the subject non-notable with 5 references might have approved it with 12; a user calling the article unverifiable with 0 footnotes might have accepted 42; a user calling the 27 KB version gibberish might have found the 9 KB version to be more intelligible. In such a situation, consensus would have to be very solid to justify deletion, and that's not what I see in the debate. Tim Smith 04:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure ... I looked at this version in Google cache [1]. The whole reason for the WP:NOR policy is so that we don't have everyone publishing their random physics theory on Wikipedia [2]. Though, presumably, Langan was not himself an author of the WP article, this kind of thing is what the policy was hoping to avoid. We don't need novel theories from every physics guy with a website. At any rate, the consensus to delete was nearly unanimous among non-redlinked users. So I endorse the closure. BigDT 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. That's an old version from before the AfD. Notice that it has 4 references (as opposed to 12) and 0 footnotes (as opposed to 42). The CTMU is philosophy, not physics. Langan is not just a guy with a website; he and the CTMU were profiled in numerous mainstream media sources including Popular Science, The Times, 20/20, Newsday and Esquire (all sourced in the 12-reference version). Those aren't peer-reviewed philosophy journals, of course, but they don't need to be: the goal of the article is not to assert the theory as truth, but to describe it, factually and neutrally. The proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories requires reference in only one mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines" like the ones in which the CTMU appeared. WP:NOR is inapplicable here: we're not introducing our own research, but describing the existing work of a notable public figure. In the 42-footnote version, that work was carefully cited (down to the page number) to ensure verifiability. Finally, among users who had edited before the start of the AfD, I count 12 keeps and 19 deletes, a 61% delete ratio. Tim Smith 05:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorse closure I looked at the Popular Science article and it was a biographical blurb about Langan but didn't say much of anything about the CTMU theory. As such, Langan himself might be notable (and a suitable subject for a Wikipedia biography) because of the Popsci piece, but CTMU is still not notable per the WP:RS criteria which require peer review. Phr (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Popular Science focuses specifically on the theory here—not extensively, but prominently enough to pass the proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories, which requires only that they be "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication", explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines" like Popular Science. Other coverage (linked in the 12-reference version) focuses on both Langan and the theory, each of which is notable and deserves its own article. The peer-reviewed sources required by WP:RS would be needed to assert the theory. But to describe it, the popular media is sufficient for notability, and Langan's own work is sufficient for verifiability (because we're just reporting what he's saying). Tim Smith 06:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too impressed by that proposed guideline, which proposes to include WP:OR in Wikipedia more or less indiscriminately. PopSci is not much above the National Enquirer in terms of reliability--it's best to stick with actual, peer-reviewed science publications if an article is supposed to be about the "scientific" content of a theory. And the PopSci article really says almost nothing about what CTMU is; it just mentions it by name and vaguely describes what problems CTMU addresses. I looked at the deleted CTMU article (not sure what version) in the Google cache and it's pretty obvious that CTMU is gibberish. Not that Langan is stupid or anything, but another smart guy named St. Thomas Aquinas tried something similar in the 13th(?) century and I don't see evidence of any big advances within CTMU over that. I'd say to put a CTMU summary into Langan's biographical article. Phr (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Again, WP:OR is inapplicable here: we're not introducing our own research, but describing the existing work of a notable public figure. And again, the CTMU is philosophy, not science. The reliability of PopSci would matter if we were asserting the theory. But to describe it, we need to know only that PopSci belongs to the high-profile mainstream media—which it does, with a circulation of 1.45 million subscribers and a readership of more than 7 million. We don't need PopSci to exhaustively cover the theory; Langan's own work can do that. A mere summary in Langan's article would deprive readers who saw the theory in the mainstream media of a valuable resource for understanding it. Finally, please don't be so quick to dismiss the CTMU. It takes a bit of work to understand, but it's not just gibberish or recycled scholasticism. Tim Smith 07:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia doesn't assert the correctness of any theories (WP:NPOV)--it only reports on them. The reporting criterion is WP:RS. If CTMU is a philosophical theory instead of a scientific one, then fine, RS calls for cites to to peer-reviewed philosophy literature instead of scientific literature, but PopSci is neither. Give it a rest. Phr (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Wikipedia asserts the correctness of numerous theories. For example, the first sentence of Sun ("The Sun is the star at the center of our solar system") is an assertion of the theory of heliocentrism. The introduction to evolution ("Evolution is ultimately the source of the vast diversity of life") asserts the correctness of evolutionary theory. When theories are sufficiently mainstream, we assert them; when they are not, we report them. To report the claims of a notable theory, we need only establish that the theory actually makes those claims; for that purpose, primary sources suffice. Again, PopSci and the rest of the mainstream media coverage establish the CTMU's notability, while Langan's own works establish verifiability for the fact that it makes the claims we attribute to it. Tim Smith 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion The AfD was entirely in process. And this deletion review is about process, not content...as can be seen from some of the comments above, the major reason for proposed undeletion seems to be content-based, not process based. I would not oppose a small section on the CTMU (suitable neutrally written in plain English) being included in the bio of its inventor, but I think it is well established by the in-process AfD that the consensus of the Wikipedia community (among those who edit articles not related to the CTMU, anyway) doesn't want it as a separate article. Byrgenwulf 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The major reason for undeletion is process-based: the AfD was conducted during an edit war of such magnitude that the article amassed more than 140 edits during the discussion, many of them inserting or deleting entire sections at a time. The version of the article which was finally deleted bears nearly no resemblance to the one which was originally nominated for deletion, and the article's content fluctuated so rapidly that many of the justifications for deletion are valid only in the context of particular transitory versions. The AfD discussion itself was utterly chaotic, filled with one-edit users and IPs, loud accusations of forgery, a large anonymously-added table, personal attacks, irrelevant debates about the validity of the theory, an anonymous user having a conversation with himself, and so on. A mere summary in Langan's article would deprive readers who saw the theory in the mainstream media of a valuable resource for understanding it. Finally, among users who had edited before the start of the AfD, I count a 61% delete ratio of 12 keeps and 19 deletes, a weak consensus in any case and insufficient to justify deletion in view of the exceptional irregularities that bedeviled the process. Tim Smith 07:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral: I think that the request to undelete has some merit due to the changes in the article during the AFD and the difficulty of judging consensus with so many WP:SPAs in attendance. On the other hand I think the article is complete bunk. Those cancel each other out so I won't endorse deletion or request undeletion. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If you mean the Google version linked above, the version that was actually deleted—and which would presumably be restored—bears virtually no resemblance to it. Tim Smith 08:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Closure was in-process,and I also agree with the decision. We have Aetherometry as a precedent. There is no obvious adoption of this theory outside of its proponents - there is clearly insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources on which to base a properly neutral article. Come back when it's been published in Nature. Just zis Guy you know? 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Nature is a scientific journal; again, the CTMU is philosophy, not science. A neutral article can be written simply by qualifying the theory's claims to the theorist: describing the theory rather than asserting it. If the theory has not been widely adopted, the article can say so. We would need secondary sources to assert or deny the theory's claims, but not to report them; for that purpose Langan's own papers suffice. These are not barriers to neutrality. Tim Smith 09:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point rather. This is a purportedly scientific theory that has not been published in any scientific journal ("proof" is a scientific concept and the statement of the "proof" uses pseudoscientific language). The claim of philosophy appears to be, in the main, a smokescreen to obscure this. Nor has it apparently garnered any significant followers in the philosophical sphere - it appears that its main publisher and proponent is its author. Unlike, say, young-earth creationism, there does not appear to be any significant movement associated with this concept. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The CTMU does not purport to be a scientific theory; indeed, Langan argues that "no general theory of reality can ever be reliably constructed by the standard empirical methods of science." (Langan 2002, p. 12). Proof is a logico-mathematical concept, not a scientific concept, and the CTMU cannot be pseudoscience when it does not present itself as science; again, it's philosophy. Again, notability is established by the theory's numerous high-profile, attention-getting appearances in mainstream media sources like Popular Science, 20/20, The Times, Newsday, and Esquire, with circulations and readerships in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Tim Smith 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. The article is pseudoscience, IMO, but it is notable in the sense that it appears in the media and has a respectable google hit count. There are plenty of other pseudoscience articles (such as astrology or modern Galilean relativity). These articles should all exist with a mainstream critique available and/or a POV tag permanently attached -- this option was not sufficiently covered in the AfD discussion. Sweeping the problem under the rug with a deletion is not a long-term solution to a systemic failure; Wikipedia needs to be a little more inclusive and a little less bigotted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Not comparable. There are a bazillion published works about astrology that thoroughly document its teachings with mind-numbing specificity, from an enormous number of publishers and authors. A Wikipedia article about astrology that follows those works cannot possibly be considered WP:OR. There are apparently no such publications about CTMU except those self-published by the inventor or his organization (there are mentions of CTMU like the PopSci article, but they don't document CTMU). As such, any WP article about CTMU has to draw heavily on Langon's own writings, which are primary source material, something of a no-no in Wikipedia. (Per WP:RS, Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source which means it in principle only reports on stuff published by secondary sources, and excludes primary source material as being original research). Not sure about Galilean Relativity but there's at least a supposed journal about it and multiple authors working on it over a long period (centuries) of time, and the WP article more or less lumps them together, which isn't so bad. Phr (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The distinction here is between the claims made by a primary source, and the fact that the primary source made those claims. WP:RS explains the difference as follows:

An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.

In other words, if Langan makes a claim in a published paper, we cannot use that paper to verify the claim. But we can use the paper to verify that Langan made the claim. In the 42-footnote version, Langan's claims were carefully cited to his published papers, right down to the page number. Tim Smith 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly verifiable that Langan has this fringe theory (CTMU) and it's fine, per the paragraph you cite, for Wikipedia to report that Langan has this theory, and give a brief description of the theory. The place to do that is in Langan's biographical article, whose presence nobody is contesting. You're pressing for something completely different, which is a large separate article about CTMU. The individual assertions in such an article would have to be documented from secondary sources other than Langan, or else the article documents nothing except "Langan's idiosyncratic explanation of life, the universe, and everything is: ...". That is the epitomy of WP:OR. Phr (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The essence of WP:OR is:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

A CTMU article would transgress neither of these requirements: we're citing Langan's previously published works, and we're not doing any new analysis or synthesis of his claims to advance a position—just summarizing and reporting them directly. WP:OR is about stopping editors from inserting their own theories or interpretations into articles; that's not an issue here, and primary sources suffice to relay the material. The mainstream media coverage has given prominent, attention-getting placement to the theory, and a mere summary in Langan's article would deprive readers of a valuable resource for understanding what they saw there. Tim Smith 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, you're not citing any of Langan's previously published works that have passed scholarly peer review since those don't exist. And Langan's biographical article has a link to Langan's website. You can put all the CTMU stuff you want on that site, and in fact it's there already. Wikipedia readers capable of clicking a mouse who actually want to see that stuff will be deprived of nothing. What you really want is for Wikipedia to lend undeserved credibility to CTMU by devoting an article to CTMU, and that's precisely what WP:OR is intended to prevent. Anyway I don't have more to say about this DRV so I'm going to attempt to stop replying. Phr (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Any article on Wikipedia could be moved to an external site. To do so would be to deprive Wikipedia of the encyclopedic content in which its value resides, and to deprive readers of the infrastructure through which that content is written, maintained, and reviewed for factuality and neutrality. Again, peer-reviewed references would be needed to assert the theory, not to describe it. To assert Langan's claims, the publications in which his papers appeared are not reliable sources. But to assert the fact that he made those claims, they are. Wikipedia editors are not doing original research by reporting previously published claims. Finally, please assume good faith. Tim Smith 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. Not notable enough for our tastes. --Improv 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The proposed notability criterion for non-mainstream theories requires reference in only one mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". The CTMU easily passes, having appeared in Popular Science (circulation of 1.45 million subscribers; readership of more than 7 million), Newsday (circulation in the hundreds of thousands), The Times (hundreds of thousands of copies sold daily), on 20/20 (averages millions of viewers per week), and elsewhere (sources in the 12-reference version). It is this level of high-profile exposure which makes the CTMU notable, and which makes an encyclopedia article of use to the many readers introduced to the theory through these sources. Tim Smith 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are (proposed) guidelines to help us make our judgement call. It is fundamentally a judgement call though. --Improv 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since I didn't thoroughly set out my rationale for closing as "delete" I will reproduce the message I posted on Tim Smith's talk page when he asked me to expand: Thanks for your comment. I don't think the version of the article affected most of the delete arguments, at least those that I parsed as the most important. I was compelled by a couple of points made by delete voters: (1) the theory is probably not notable outside its connection to a really smart guy, and can be covered completely at the article on him; and (2) this is confirmed by the fact that none of the cites for the article mentioned any other people working on this theory. I agree that it was a difficult decision to make, and I did read the arguments closely and try to watch out for sockpuppets and other very new users. I'm going to stick by my closure, but if you feel that there is more discussion to be had, you might open a discussion at Deletion Review. I can also temporarily undelete the article if you feel that one version contains useful information for a merger into Christopher Michael Langan. There was a lot of sockpuppetry and skullduggery to dig through in the discussion, and I would not be opposed to a relist, but I fear that it would fall victim to the same problems as this one did. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. Media coverage establishes notability of the man, but none of the "mainstream publications" discussed the pseudophilosophy in sufficient depth to let it stand on its own. I counted three paragraphs actually focusing upon the CTMU in the Popular Science article ostensibly devoted to it, for example. (This, combined with the total indifference mainstream science and philosophy have shown to the CTMU suggest to me that nobody else can get any content out of it, either, but that's a different debate.) A single paragraph in the Christopher Langan article would give all the coverage of the CTMU the Wikipedia needs. Anville 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The mainstream media coverage is about both the person and the theory, and features the theory prominently. The Times, for example, begins its article with:

Every age has its great thinkers: Plato looked at metaphysics, ethics, and politics; Descartes tried to rebuild human knowledge; Bertrand Russell gave us mathematical logic; from Stephen Hawking came A Brief History of Time. Now there's Chris Langan, the brainy bouncer, with his Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe.

20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:

I found arguably the smartest person in America in eastern Long Island. [...] His name is Christopher Langan and he’s working on his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe.

The Popular Science header says:

He's a working class guy with an IQ that's off the charts. What does he have to say about science? Everything -- a theory of everything, that is.

The caption of the article's photo reads:

Christopher Langan spends his downtime coming up with a solution to a problem that philosophers and scientists have pondered for thousands of years.

So the CTMU has not just been "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication" as the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories requires, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines", but has received prominent, attention-getting placement in many such publications, with circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. A mere summary in Langan's article would deprive readers who saw the theory in the mainstream media of a valuable resource for understanding it. It deserves its own article. Tim Smith 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All of these mention the theory, because it's what the guy has done. Other than giving some indication of its grandiose scope, what do they say about the content of the CTMU? And why would a section entitled "The Cognitive Theoretic ..." in the Langan article be any harder to find via a Google search than a separate article? Anville 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The mainstream media have described the scope and purpose of the theory, noted its more dramatic claims, outlined the structure of its arguments, and proclaimed its potential significance. Of course, that's not an exhaustive treament, but we don't need it to be; it's sufficient that the theory appeared prominently in high-profile sources with circulations, readerships, and viewerships in the hundreds of thousands or millions. The issue is not that a section in the Langan article would be hard to find, but that it would be inadequate as a description, and of no benefit to curious readers seeking to understand the theory they saw so excitedly outlined in the mainstream media. To explain the theory and satisfy those readers, we need not a section, but an article. Tim Smith 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Those media stories are all from several years ago. It is unlikely that someone is going to be exposed to the story now and suddenly miss the Wikipedia article about it. The articles, moreover, have titles like "Wise Guy", "Smart Guy", etc., and are about Langan, not his theory. I think your argument is specious, Tim Smith. Why don't you give this a rest, now? You've made your point about the media. Any literate person will be able to see what you're on about, and at the moment you're not introducing any new points. Byrgenwulf 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tourette's Guy

This article has been reviewed and nailed down as non-notable twice now with total votes at 14 nn 2 n. The problem I'm seeing is that the site www.tourettesguy.com has been the only source sought in determining the notability of the PERSON 'Tourette's Guy.' The site itself certainly does not have the notability the person does- and it is easily fair game to call him an internet phenomenon. Reliable proof will follow. Quick searches of the largest humor and even non-humor video archives reveal that Tourette's Guy is very popular and even has a cult following. Here are some of the resources I've found:

• His website: http://www.tourettesguy.com
• Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search=tourettes+guy&search_type=search_videos&search=Search
• Google Video: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=tourette%27s+guy (also includes clips of people lampooning his behavior)
• Ytmnd.com: http://ytmnd.com/list/?search=tourettes+guy
• Stupidvideos: http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_plain_stupid/Tourettes_Bob_Saget/
• Ifilm: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2682505?htv=12
• Starterupsteve: http://www.starterupsteve.com/video/bobsaget.html
• Jokaroo: http://www.jokaroo.com/funnyvideos/the_tourettes_guy.html
• Alldumb: http://www.alldumb.com/item/29765/
• A tourette's syndrome website considered Tourette's guy notable enough to write an article comparing him to real tourette's syndrome (Although this article is certainly questionable in it's scholarship itself): http://www.tourettes-disorder.com/extra/tourettes_guy.html

I would like to quote Wikipedia's Notability (memes) page:

Google doesn't establish notability: A Google test cannot be used to establish that a meme is notable because it is theoretically possible that issues such as Google bombing have inflated the count. However, Google can show non-notability for Internet memes. A very small Google count can show that a meme is non-notable.

Google returns over half a million results on 'Tourette's Guy'. Let's compare to some current entries in Wikipedia's current list of Internet phenomenon

• John Daker - 69,800 results
• Leeroy Jenkins - 212,000 results
• Exploding Whale - 411,000 results
• Retarded Animal Babies - 476,000 results

I only bothered showing four because I don't really have the time to show more- but really all it would take would be one of these to prove that these entries are at least LESS notable than Tourette's Guy according to the statement above about small Google results. So to recap:

• 1) TG IS NOTABLE as shown by the enormous amount of saturation his videos have made into the online video community
• 2) TG IS NOT NON-NOTABLE as shown by the absence of lackluster Google results.

I nominate Tourette's Guy (The person not the website) to undeletion. Thank you. Whetstone 06:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted due to the lack of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nn viral marketing per Stifle. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. Tourette's Guy actually generates 292 unique Google hits, not half a million as the nominator claims. [3] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This will be entirely forgotten within 2 years. Not notable. --Improv 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)