Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)
Appearance
- Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
More crap off teh Internets. Ludicrously thin claim to fame. Escapes speedy ONLY because it *asserts* notability, not actually having it. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by an anon IP. Calton | Talk 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Previously deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Crocker (internet) from July. --Calton | Talk 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - People only want this deleted because he is gay. There is no reason to delete it; there are plenty of sources now. It needs to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.20.109 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - There is no justification for deletion of this article, even though the content is extremely questionable and lacking. 69.14.85.112 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)— 69.14.85.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep . Honestly, I don't like it, but there are multiple news sources discussing this individual. My local news also covered her, in addition to multiple radio shows. The article has links to several news papers. This qualifies for notability. Turlo Lomon 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ITSSOURCED: "Even articles that cite reliable sources and are verifiable do not necessarily merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many events that were briefly in the news have multiple newspaper articles written about them (frequently with similar content), and can thus be sourced, but are (after the event is over) not of a significant historical or cultural impact." --Calton | Talk 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Her"? Oh boy. Ichormosquito 04:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Give me a break. The radio show I was listening to on the way to work the day I wrote that was slightly... misinformed. LOL. Turlo Lomon 07:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're not alone. Keith Olbermann made the same mistake: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubUHbwAzydc Ichormosquito 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep – Just becuase he got famous on the internet does not make him less notable. Here a Danish newspaper (Ekstrabladet) has an article about Chris on their website, this spread halfway across the globe underlines the notability. --Morten LJ 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'll see your WP:ITSSOURCED and rise you a WP:BASH - Fosnez 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mine's a reason. Your's is a dodge. So no, not a "rise". --Calton | Talk 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually its not, but heres another one for you WP:JUSTAPOLICY Fosnez 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, pay attention: I offer a link to a common -- and widely accepted -- rationale. You, instead of actually addressing the rationale, simply offer up a link about not offering up links -- which makes it not only a rhetorical dodge, but an ironic one at that. So, were you actually going to address it, or were you going to dredge up some more shortcuts? --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please read Jreferee keep comment below for answers. The readers digest version is non-temporary notability has been established. Fosnez 07:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Short form, then, given that the keep comment does not such thing: no. Got it. --Calton | Talk 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you honestly still maintaining that this is not notable? Fosnez 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Are you actually attempting the passive-aggressive rhetorical-question dodge? Really? Instead, you know, honestly answering the questions asked? Are you? Have you been reduced to that sort of rhetorical handwaving? --Calton | Talk 06:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Riiiiiiight... well now you're just being unhelpful... - Fosnez 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Author of article, not a Britney fan, but was shocked to see it on the front page of News.Com.Au. Wikipedia:Notability says notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". The only requirements for notability Significant coverage by Reliable Sources that are Independent of the subject - such as theses: [1][2][3] - Fosnez 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Qualifies as notable imho. Debolaz 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Deserving to be notable is not the same as being notable, only the latter matters here. Debolaz 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; the news articles are mostly of the News of the Weird kind, and being famous for 10 seconds does not mean being worth of note in an encyclopedia. Other than the hilarious video, what has he done? We don't even know his date of birth! If this article is kept, it should be renamed to "Britney Spears Fan video" or something similar, as the article subject is the video, not the person. Tizio 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Notability is not temporary - if he was once notable, he is forever notable. Fosnez 13:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Blink. You're seriously saying that appearing once on the home page of an Australian website means makes him famous forever? You're actually making this claim? --Calton | Talk 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- As mentioned before, notability is not the same as being a celebrity. Debolaz 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- And a dessert topping is not a floor wax, and what does any of it mean regarding the price of tea in China? --Calton | Talk 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- As mentioned before, notability is not the same as being a celebrity. Debolaz 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete brief "goofy news" type story, nowhere near notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete otherwise WP is just a joke. Famous for 15 seconds. Camillus (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, he was notable before the Britney incident see here - Fosnez 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unlike many "accidental" net phenemonons, Crocker is more of a publicity-whore trying to run viral marketing, WP should not be supporting that. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not really a reason to not include a NPoV article - Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable.--CyberGhostface 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Care to expand on that? Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment From what I've heard he's just another internet meme who's gotten a little bit of coverage. I guess if he appears on a TV show or something similar but so far he's just another youtube star. Wasn't he deleted earlier as well?--CyberGhostface 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThe article was deleted before, but that was due to lack of sources... now that sources have been added and he has become much more notable Fosnez 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. We'll have forgotten about him within a week, if not sooner. Zerbey 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Seems unlikely and WP is not a crystal ball so we should go on evidence at hand. Benjiboi 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The man's made a tearstained legend of himself, he's been on Fox News, CNN, TMZ, the Age, God knows what else. If absolutely nothing else it should be merged with a larger article, though expanding the article would be preferable. Arguing that he's not going to be famous a year from now is pointless- why do we still have that awful song by Samwell on here then? dethtoll 17:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.
Neutral.Here's a fairly thorough biographical write up from The Stranger (newspaper): http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=232684. Quotes: "Nineteen and gay, too effeminate to hide, and persecuted by haters in his small town, Chris Crocker turned to the web to vent. Now he's a huge YouTube celebrity." and "Over on YouTube, where Chris also posts, the total number of views for his videos long ago passed the one million mark. Among the people far away from Real Bitch Island who are tuning in: Cassie, the R&B star, who has a subscription to the Chris Crocker video stream on her YouTube page; Glenn Meehan, a Los Angeles producer who recently inked a deal with Chris to develop ideas for a TV show; and Matt Sunbulli, MTV's 'web correspondent,' who has requested a Chris Crocker video for the MTV website. 'He's got this incredible energy,' Meehan, the L.A. producer, told me. Sunbulli, the MTV correspondent, told me Chris has 'virality.'" God help us all, he might be notable. Ichormosquito 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Comment. I can't make up my mind. My opinion is somewhere between "neutral" and "weak keep". Ichormosquito 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)- Comment. Dear Lord. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20750575/. It's one of many sources that are popping up. Ichormosquito 13:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: Notability is simply not temporary. This is a case of recentism. All of the sources are incidental and do nothing to establish actual notability. IvoShandor 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment partial notability has been established before. Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable and will be forgotten as the others mentioned. Evolutionselene 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. "Notability is not temporary" is an official Wikipedia guideline. If he's notable only for one act or event or only in relation to something/someone else major, mention him in the article on that act/event/etc. Recent precedent.DMacks 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment so a source talking something other the the Britney incident would suffice? Like this one? Fosnez 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as above - no lasting notability. Eusebeus 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable per other nominators - wikipedia is not a platform to make people famous. Willirennen 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia isn't going to make him famous, He's already famous. Allstarecho™ 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs)
- Comment Let me reiterate: Why do we continue to have an article on Samwell's What What (In the Butt), why do we continue to have an article on, say, this guy, why do we have an article on just about every useless person or thing that was only famous for a short period of time? What makes Samwell notable? What makes any of these people notable? If we can have that sort of thing on here, then I honestly don't see why we can't have Chris Crocker on here. dethtoll 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is about the weakest reason I can think of to keep any one piece of crap. If you think some page isn't worthy, by all means please nominate it for deletion so we can get rid of stuff that isn't worthy. But wikipedia is huge and nobody can know about what one person considers deletable unless he/she says something. DMacks 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a question of whether I think those articles are notable- I'm just saying that Chris Crocker is JUST AS notable as they are, no more, no less (with maybe one or two exceptions, like the Evolution of Dance guy) so if we're going to delete this article we may as well delete all the others, because by declaring Chris Crocker non-notable we're declaring most of the other Youtube celebs with 15 seconds of fame non-notable too. But if this article is kept then that validates the existence of the other articles. See what I'm saying here? It's either all or nothing. dethtoll 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please read over WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. It's not "all or nothing". The Bus Uncle passes WP:WEB with flying colors. What What (In the Butt) is borderline. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happyslip for an example of the notability guidelines in action as applied to YouTube celebrities. Ichormosquito 19:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a question of whether I think those articles are notable- I'm just saying that Chris Crocker is JUST AS notable as they are, no more, no less (with maybe one or two exceptions, like the Evolution of Dance guy) so if we're going to delete this article we may as well delete all the others, because by declaring Chris Crocker non-notable we're declaring most of the other Youtube celebs with 15 seconds of fame non-notable too. But if this article is kept then that validates the existence of the other articles. See what I'm saying here? It's either all or nothing. dethtoll 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As said before, the guy isn't notable enough, and within a week his 15 minutes will be up. Rawboard 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep !!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.179.51 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Ichormosquito 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment ABC News print interview with Crocker: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=3592492&page=1 Quote: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." This line seems to fulfill WP:BIO's "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Ichormosquito 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Camillus and DMacks. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, all non-notable articles need to be tagged for AfD; their unnoticed existence is not justification for another article to exist. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment many other sources are coming out of the woodwork - like this and others: [4][5][6]. A lot of the comments above seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT but not much else. I assert once again, notability has been shown by the Significant coverage by Reliable Sources that are Independent of the subject Fosnez 20:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Notability is not temporary. There is nothing this guy has done to make himself notable long term. Think of it this way - Britney's performance in and of itself is not notable enough to have its own page. The criticism is definitely not notable enough to have a WP article. So why would the criticism of the criticism have enough notability? Smashville 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't follow. If the news media finds criticism of criticism notable, who are we to say otherwise? In response to your concerns about his longterm notability, I again quote ABC News: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." You might also want to look over the article from The Stranger (newspaper)[7], which is surprisingly thorough and was published BEFORE the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Being on ABC News is not evidence of longterm notability. That's the nature of the news...they report on the "right now". And this simply is not notable. Smashville 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that his being on ABC News establishes notability. I'm arguing that the nature of his coverage might. Being the 30th or so most subscribed user on YouTube tends to give one a healthy amount of exposure, and both ABC News and The Stranger acknowledge he had a significant fan base before the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Being on ABC News is not evidence of longterm notability. That's the nature of the news...they report on the "right now". And this simply is not notable. Smashville 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't follow. If the news media finds criticism of criticism notable, who are we to say otherwise? In response to your concerns about his longterm notability, I again quote ABC News: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." You might also want to look over the article from The Stranger (newspaper)[7], which is surprisingly thorough and was published BEFORE the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should move the article to Chris Crocker (Youtube) or Chris Crocker (Youtube Director) or something? Fosnez 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to have been moved to Chris Crocker (internet celebrity), probably a better name Fosnez 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - A nobody criticising wannabes who criticize nobodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.217.240 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete in a week's time, everyone will have forgotten about him. Hell, a fan video for a Doctor Who episode got at least two newspaper articles. It's not even mentioned on the episode page. Will (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable. In that case, anyone can just make some weird video on youtube and become notable for a week or two. Unless this person does something special and we get a full bio of him, then just delete it. We can merge it into another article which relates to this (if there is one). Anyhow, this article is filled with nonsens, vandalism and it's poorly written and not enough sources to back all the claims it makes. --Arad 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Seriously, did you even read the article? this article is filled with nonsens, vandalism and it's poorly written and not enough sources to back all the claims it makes If you find vandalism, fix it. If it's poorly written, rewrite it. Six sources have been added to the article, thats not enough? Fosnez 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete The fact that this even needs discussing is insanity. If this gentelman's fans wish to extend his fame they should perhaps consider writing a few lines concerning his video on Britney Spears Wikipedia entry. Otherwise the essential purpose of any true encyclopedia is to provide knowledge. This article certainly does not function in that capacity.SerpentOfDarkness 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - non notable, another 15 minutes of fame case. Completely irrelevant and non-encyclopedic. --71.231.7.20 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep He is notable. he is one of the most suscribed on youtube, and so are other people that have pages on here. He is very notable on Myspace, he has the most views on Myspace. He is seen National fame in recent weeks due to his videos. Keep this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.167.236 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Creating entries at youtube and myspace do not make you notable. Being made a laughing stock in several newspapers does not make you notable. He'll now sink back into his 23.75 hours of lack of fame and we'll never hear from hinm again. Corvus cornix 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - according to policy, being made a laughing stock in several newspapers does make you notable Fosnez 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Really, mind pointing to where it says that? Or are you overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument? --Calton | Talk 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to quote, well you, actually... "Thats a dodge" Fosnez 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm quoting you -- it's called "irony", you could look it up -- about the defects in simply pointing to a link, especially when said link contains no evidence of what you claim. Or does it? Now might be the time to actually prove that. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The nature of this topic isn't what Wikipedia covers. It would at least be better on the Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica, though all they woukd do is bash him. Too bad theres no wiki that specifically cover internet memes, personalites or celetbrites (in neautral tone). THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable, per nom. Sarah 00:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify what you mean by not notable? If its sources then they have well been established as being reliable etc. Or is it that you Don't like the article and believe that it shouldn't be on wikipedia(because thats not a valid reason for deletion)? (please, this is not ment as a personal attack) Fosnez 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is most likely fancruft created by Chris to self promote his latest video, clearly he is doing a good job because it has been viewed more then 3 million times since he posted it 24 hrs ago. He is just like Jeffery Starr he is a self promoting nothing who is not note worthy. As with Jeffery I believe Wiki should salt the earth on this subject. I look at an encyclopedia as a record of humanity and our observations, if we were to all die today is this what we want in these records? User: RushDoggr IP:209.12.37.114
- Comment: Do you mean Jeffree Star, who has an article? Where through afd it was decided to keep the article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- More like the Jeffree Starr who bludgeoned his way, tirelessly and relentlessly onto Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's too late to worry about seeming vapid to future generations. dethtoll 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, yeah we want to record this for our future generation, he has been on the cover of most major news websites, newcasts. This type of thing is part of the planet's collective culture. Fosnez 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Do you mean Jeffree Star, who has an article? Where through afd it was decided to keep the article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Sarah. Acalamari 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete yet another stupid internet "phenomenon." this will blow over in a few weeks and no one will have ever heard of him. Star Wars Kid FTW!! --NMChico24 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Star Wars kid is notable as far as wikipedia is concered Fosnez 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. He was an attention whore then, he's an attention whore now. Any whackjob with an Alexis Arquette look can forget their meds and fake histrionics on a YouTube video and become "internets popular." This article needs to go, and Chris Crocker, YOU NEED PROFESSIONAL HELP. Bye. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, someone with five seconds of fame that hasn't actually done anything worth keeping a record of. LEAVE CHRIS CROCKER ALONE, HE DOESN'T NEED THE ATTENTION (sorry, had to...) The359 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't leave him alone, world, you're gonna have to deal with me! Because he's not well right now! (All right, I'm done too) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Regardless of notability, Wikipedia isn't a news report: the need to contextualize events appropriately may mean "not having a biography about someone who is, in fact, not encyclopedic, despite having made a brief appearance in the news" GracenotesT § 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Right, but according to various sources, the context of this "event" is that Crocker is an entertainer with a significant fanbase, which would make this video his breakthrough performance. Ichormosquito 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- For something to be its own context is a more-than-reasonable expectation. Historical context is less easily proven, although there could possibly be some in this case. Present and future (probably immediate future) sources will tell if this is the case. (It wouldn't do much harm for more delete-"voters" to approach the subject dispassionately, though... eh.) GracenotesT § 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Right, but according to various sources, the context of this "event" is that Crocker is an entertainer with a significant fanbase, which would make this video his breakthrough performance. Ichormosquito 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I love up-hill battles. An interview with a reporter from Salon.com: http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/09/12/chris_crocker/ Apparently, he'll be on The Howard Stern Show tomorrow. Ichormosquito 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Before he was the ranked as the current most watched guy on youtube, I might have said to delete, but this looks like it's gonna stick around for a while. Ronabop 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm with Gracenotes on one point, in spite of their vote: I think a lot of these delete votes are rather rash and not well-thought-out- they seem almost kneejerk to me. I've put some thought into my keep vote, and at the end of the day I think Chris DOES belong here, as his tenuous hold on notability gets stronger and stronger as time passes. dethtoll 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment are you able to provide more than rhetoric to establish your position? what makes you believe this person will have any relevance once the most recent Britney controversy dies down? --NMChico24 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. A lot of people on List of YouTube celebrities don't fit WP:NOTABILITY nor have the covereage he has/had. Calicore 04:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Those on the list page don't necessarily have their own articles, either. Sometimes a person can merit his/her own brief mention in an established article without meeting the inclusion criteria for new articles that focus solely on that person. --NMChico24 04:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Listings without articles still need to be sourced. Someone (I?) should get around to it. Ichormosquito 05:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Those on the list page don't necessarily have their own articles, either. Sometimes a person can merit his/her own brief mention in an established article without meeting the inclusion criteria for new articles that focus solely on that person. --NMChico24 04:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. According to WP:BIO, an entertainer is generally considered notable if he has a large fan base or cult following. Can someone explain to me how Crocker fails to satisfy this provision? Before he produced his Britney video, The Stranger (newspaper) called him a "huge YouTube celebrity" in May 2007. ABC News comes right out and says "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base."[8]. I sort of see why editors would want to wait for evidence of long term coverage, but I can't understand the "strong deletes" or the deletes without rationales. Ichormosquito 05:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to see more evidence than a Seattle alt-weekly's claim regarding this alleged "huge" celebrity status. Being a "Youtube celebrity", for all I know, is the equivalent of the World's Tallest Pygmy. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- In addition to ABC News's saying he had "quite a fan base" even before the Britney video, MSNBC says he had/has a "cult following".[9] They're almost quoting WP:BIO verbatim. Ichormosquito 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. 3.2 million hits and counting, and global press coverage. Artrush 05:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Meets notability through several reliable sources. -- SatyrTN<;span style="font-size: smaller;"> (talk | contribs) 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - There is more than enough reliable source material to write an article on this topic. Meets WP:N He is getting his own show and news column, so there will be more reliable source material in the future. Here are some references I found:
- Sanders, Eli. (May 31, 2007) The Stranger Escape from real bitch island. Volume 16; Issue 38; Page 16.
- Blitzer, Wolf. (September 11, 2007) CNN The Situation Room Round Two of Iraq War Hearings; Bin Laden Taunts United States - Part 2. Sect: News; Domestic; Time: 16:00 EST; Tran: 091103CN.V16.
- Fort Worth Star-Telegram (September 12, 2007) People Watch. Page B16.
- Cooper, Anderson (September 11, 2007) CNN Anderson Cooper 360° Embarrassing comeback attempt. 19:57 PM EST.
- Sanchez, Rick (September 12, 2007) CNN Special/Live Event Iraqi Prime Minister Speaks Out; New Evidence in Madeleine McCann Case? - Part 2 Sect: News; International; Tran: 091201CN.V54.
- La Gazzetta dello Sport (September 13, 2007) 1.8 Million visits; "Left Britney" Plant of a fan prevails on YouTube. (translated from Italian: "1.8 Milioni di visite; "Lasciate Britney" Il pianto di un fan trionfa su YouTube.") Section: Gazzetta; Page 34.
- -- Jreferee (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly Keep per Jreferee... it would appear notability is easily earned these days thanks to youtube... you too can have the next 15 minute of fame... and then a nervous breakdown and get a wikipedia page! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Britney Spears--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 07:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Merging would completely discount what this individual has accomplished before the Britney video was even created. Turlo Lomon 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep This article will almost certainly be deleted, and I have to admit that I will not be sad to see it go. However, I feel I have to speak up; it seems that all of those who are arguing delete simply don't like it, and haven't even bothered with the notability guideline, which states A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is obviously the case here. I don't like this article any more than anyone else, but we can't pick and choose when we observe policy and guidelines, we have to apply them uniformly. faithless (speak) 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, we can pick and choose -- see Wikipedia: Ignore All Rules. Still, I've voted keep. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Just someone wanting their fifteen minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.162.140 (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - after reading through WP:ITSSOURCED, I think that this should go. There is a line that states "Even articles that cite reliable sources and are verifiable do not necessarily merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many events that were briefly in the news have multiple newspaper articles written about them (frequently with similar content), and can thus be sourced, but are (after the event is over) not of a significant historical or cultural impact." This seems to hit the nail on the head on this occassion. Irishjp 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - "Significant historical or cultural impact" is ridiculously subjective, which might be part of the reason why WP:ITSSOURCED is an essay, not a guideline. Even after this Britney thing blows over, Crocker will continue to make videos, as he has for the past six months, and they will continue to get 300,000+ views. The site might not look it, but YouTube is highly competitive. Once a personality reaches the heights that Crocker has, he or she stays in the limelight there for at least a year. And the sources have already tried to place him in a wider cultural context. According to them, Crocker is a stifled homosexual in the Southern United States for whom YouTube is a godsend. Ichormosquito 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP There are twenty plus Youtube celebrities with pages. This guys has become a pseudo-celebrity, has been featured in the media. He's annoying, but it doesnt mean he shouldnt get a page. Saopaulo1 12:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see your point but however he is making himself into an well attention (well you know the word that you should insert here) and giving him a Wikipedia page is catering to him wanting to get famous for nothing deal. Its not exactly like Pars Hilton who yes got famous for being famous but she at least has been in movies. But thats just my opinion on this. Evolutionselene 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We should be as dispassionate as possible. If he's notable, he's notable, whether or not he's an attention whore. Ichormosquito 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see your point but however he is making himself into an well attention (well you know the word that you should insert here) and giving him a Wikipedia page is catering to him wanting to get famous for nothing deal. Its not exactly like Pars Hilton who yes got famous for being famous but she at least has been in movies. But thats just my opinion on this. Evolutionselene 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd like to point out that MSNBC is mocking us for not conceding that Crocker is an internet phenomenon. They just released an interview with him this morning. Quote: "If Wikipedia hasn’t recognized Chris as an official Internet phenomenon, he certainly is now." Link here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20750575/ Ichormosquito 13:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- "If Wikipedia hasn’t recognized Chris as an official Internet phenomenon, he certainly is now." Is this mocking? Looks like an opinion to me. Legitimate, of course, but are we bound to follow it? I don't think so. Tizio 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, note the comparison to Warhol. Who's being mocked here, in your opinion? Tizio 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say it's mocking. Taunting, anyway. The author has obviously seen that his article is disputed. And the Warhol comparison is apt, if exaggerated. He's not being compared to Warhol, but to Candy Darling. Ichormosquito 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The author of that article is talking about the fact we don't have this guy on List_of_Internet_phenomena, not this article or this AFD. At least, that's the page her article is linking to. But seriously, the day we let an editorial comment made by one journalist dictate our editorial decisions is the day most of us will give up on this project. Sarah 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing we should cave to the opinion of one journalist. I just thought it was funny. For the sake of balance, I don't think Richard Roeper would be happy if we legitimized Crocker's grab for fame.[10] Still, as Roeper acknowledges, a mention in his column does nothing but support Crocker's self-promotion. Ichormosquito 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The author of that article is talking about the fact we don't have this guy on List_of_Internet_phenomena, not this article or this AFD. At least, that's the page her article is linking to. But seriously, the day we let an editorial comment made by one journalist dictate our editorial decisions is the day most of us will give up on this project. Sarah 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say it's mocking. Taunting, anyway. The author has obviously seen that his article is disputed. And the Warhol comparison is apt, if exaggerated. He's not being compared to Warhol, but to Candy Darling. Ichormosquito 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- VERY Strong DELETE... how is Chris Crocker so notable? Just because he can make a video and show up on youtube or myspace like any other Joe Blow? The guy is an actor who's just to make a name for himself. 15.251.169.70 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. The mainstream media fell for the video and reported on it (on a slow news day) because they thought it was one of those quirky stories about how a no-life Britney Spears superfan suffered a mental breakdown on youtube. And that isn't the truth; the subject is a wannabe attention-getter and the video is clearly another one of his performance art bits. Yes, he's been interviewed by several radio and TV stations, and he's clearly engaging in self-promotion in each interview. The statements in some news articles that he has a "significant fan base" are attributed to . . . guess who? Crocker. Having someone watch your video on youtube doesn't make the viewer a fan. (E.g., most of the people who watched the Britney Spears VMA clips on youtubes are not fans of Spears, but people who wanted to laugh at her bad performance.) A bunch of "friends" on myspace - so what? Is someone with a 1000 friends on myspace entitled to a Wikipedia entry? Or 10,000? Or 10 million? Crocker himself is not notable enough to merit an entry in an encyclopedia. 64.190.140.138 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete A Youtube video rant does not automatically make you notable. He didn't make a groundbreaking, critically-acclaimed video, its a melodramatic, opinionated, non encyclopedic rant. Problems arise with WP:V, WP:SOURCES, and WP:N. Rackabello 16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not a fan - in fact, the prospect of watching another video of his frightens me after watching several a few days ago - but the arguments against notability seem to be entirely based on the fact that he's a temporary star. That's entirely probable, yes, but that argument would eliminate one-hit wonders and fads from notability. Furthermore, most of the arguments against keeping it do seem to be based on people just not liking the subject of the article - in some cases, pretty passionately. From what I've seen, notability has been shown, and the idea that a person is just a flash in the pan isn't enough to undo that - especially when that can't be determined yet. I thought Britney Spears herself would be just a flash in the pan. When I first read an article on Brookers in The Oregonian, I didn't think I'd keep hearing about her more and more and more afterward. No, a Youtube video rant certainly doesn't make a person automatically notable. However, when said video rant gains the attention of the news and culture, I'd say that's notable. If notability was only established by "groundbreaking, critically-acclaimed" things, we'd be a lot better off...but notability isn't limited like that. I do, however, have issues with the article name...while the Britney Spears rant seems to be what's garnering the most attention right now, "Chris Crocker (Britney Spears Fan)" seems an odd title choice which is probably inspiring further passion toward deletion. I know I twitched toward the "delete" opinion based on that, before I took a better look at the situation and arguments. --Adam the Alien 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete 15 minutes of fame are nearly over. Limited non-trivial media coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
KEEP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.219.253 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete He hasn't done anything major such as saved someone's life or cured a disease. All he did was cry about a celebrity. And besides, like some of the other comments say, he'll be forgotten within a week. - Jigsy 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No on says you have to save someone's life to have a Wikipedia article. In fact, WP:N says "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which is satisfied. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see why it should be deleted when there's also an article on other Internet Celebrities such as Lonelygirl 15- now THAT was retarded, but because she wasn't gay, no one requested it to be taken off. And Chris Crocker was famous even BEFORE the Britney video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countess 2007 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 September 2007
- Strong keep. This video blogger is extremely high profile and is one of a handful of prominent openly gay YouTube stars whose videos regularly land in the top 20 most veiwed out of hundreds of thousands of videos on offer. Also seems referenced enough to denote importance. Benjiboi 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. That the page was originally created as Chris Crocker (Britney Spears Fan) speaks volumes as to the likelihood of lasting fame. It can be recreated later if that turns out not to be the case. Mallocks 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. WP is not a crystal ball and, in this case, we don't need one, notability is now well-referenced. Benjiboi 22:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I'm no fan, but he's clearly notable. --David Shankbone 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Moderately well-known internationally, with multiple non-trivial sources documenting the article's contents. --Delirium 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
KeepStrong keep. He's notable now, and arguably was even before the Britney video. --Proper tea is theft 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)- Keep.
DefinatelyDefinitely notable. --Echeese 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC) - Delete if I had my way, but in reality, keep per WP:N. Unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that makes Wikipedia these days. A popular Internet video, soon to be forgotten in coming years. Will anyone ever research this subject? Will anyone ever ask "what would Chris Crocker do?" And for those of you claiming this AfD is about homophobia, you need more things to fill out your day. ♠ SG →Talk 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Will anyone ever research this subject? Probably, I would see this as a good case study in the changing landscape of media and convergence of pop culture and personal politics. I also think that homophobia has at least a little to do with some of the motivations as is evidenced by the comments both here and on the talk page that have been removed. Benjiboi 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Unfortunately, it looks like this one has sixteen minutes of fame, stretching just one minute beyond the standard WP:NOT news limitations. Burntsauce 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It has nothing to do with homophobia.. everything to do with at least trying to maintain the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. This guy just isn't famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.96.160 (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep He is most certainly notable enough to meet guidelines. I think alot of these delete's have to do with not liking him or homophobia, i'm sorry to say. I can't believe this is still going on, he meets requirements for a page. BigCoop 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Whats with all this internet celebrity stuff? To be honest, everyone will forget this so called "celebrity" soon enough. A few news reports don't make something notable, unless you want to make a Wikipedia page for every cat stuck in a tree, or all the other stupid stuff the news actually reports. Xihix 23:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be RIDICULOUS. Find me an article about a cat getting stuck in a tree that receives not only coverage in the United States and Canada, but in Denmark [11] as well, and then we're talking (and writing a Wikipedia article about it). Burntsauce 23:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and the cat has to make an appearance on the Howard Stern show as well. Burntsauce 23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Notable internet phenomenon. --Foofy 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable and will be forgotten as the others mentioned. Ridicoulous --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Bobyllib 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment.Thats exactly the point I had been trying to convey, Bobyllib. Evolutionselene 00:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - There are plenty of moderately successful videos on the internet and they don't receive the same coverage. This person is otherwise unnotable. 98.197.248.244 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Even MSNBC tags him "an Internet rock star". His Britney Spears video has made him a world-wide name. Further, a Google News search brings back over a thousand news hits. According to Wikipedia's List of Internet phenomena: "Only a sampling of Internet phenomena which have achieved recognition in a context wider than that of the Internet, such as coverage in the mainstream media, are present here." Chris has also inked a television production deal, as reported back in May, long before his Britney video. I'd say not only now is Chris an internet phenomena but is a notable famous entity outside of the internet and not only worthy of inclusion in the List of Internet Phenomena but also worthy of his own entry in Wikipedia. Allstarecho™ 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment If the topic of an article is in the news today and it ceases to be in the news or anyone's mind, should the article be deleted? Should the article on scientists except Galileo, Newton, Eisntien, and Hawking be deleted? Should the article on ... I guess you get the idea. --Do not click me! 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Msnbc has featured him, other publications have featured him, and I'm a big fan. Please keep it Mineralè 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Not too notable; it probably belongs on something like Uncyclopedia instead. Scipex 02:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, sadly, because of significant coverage in many reliable sources. If the media chooses to cover idiots like this, they're notable. That's the price we pay for defining notability through others' eyes. -- But|seriously|folks 02:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Results 1 - 10 of about 283,000 for "Chris Crocker" -football. (0.82 seconds)" "Results 1 - 10 of about 98,300 for "Chris Crocker" football. (0.81 seconds)" According to ghits, he's now more important than the football player. Ronabop 03:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is an encylopedia, not a damn tabloid. His splash in the news is only for the Britney video. He is only notable because of the Britney video. WP:BLP1E applies. Add something to the Britney Spears article if you must, but delete this article. --Phirazo 05:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply. He's a notable entertainer per WP:BIO, as has been argued ad nauseam above. Ichormosquito 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Above comment by Phirazo took the words right out of my mouth. And the users accusing people of nominating this out of homophobia really need give it a rest Zanders5k 05:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. All sources are junk news articles. For crying out loud. ➪HiDrNick! 05:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Since when is the BBC and MSNBC junk news? Turlo Lomon 06:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- You might have had a point with the first one. The second? Not so much. But then, the statement was junk news articles, not junk news sources: it's best to make counter-arguments to what people have actually written, as opposed to what you've made up. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Meets the Requirements of Notable Brian | (Talk) 06:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not defending Crocker, but his latest video has been viewed 4 million times in 2 days. That's more than most cable TV shows. He's unambiguously notable, and it would be absurd to delete the article. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with all the other Deletes. Not notable and will be forgotten. Blob 07:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of memes. As has been said far more eloquently, five minutes of fame is not notability. To quote WP:NOTE
- Strong keep - Wikipedia should try to be as broad and far ranging as possible; insofar as Chris Crocker can't be associated with any greater topic, he deserves his own article. He is no less well known for the britney video than for his incest joke with his brother. It's worth having and certainly worth documenting for this point in internet history. Moreover, to argue that this is an encyclopedia in the most proper sense is false. Being a website, wikipedia is already tied to the internet and internet culture much more so than an encyclopedia is or most likely will ever be. Even if wikipedia strives to be like paper encyclopedias (though it shouldn't, it can be so much more), their initial purpose was to document philosophical ideas, concept, and anything else that philosophers cared about. Insofar as this is cared about internet users, it is worth documenting. Finally, in so far as it is impossible to delineate between what are "serious, important cultural artifacts" and what are not, there is no need to remove articles because a few ignoramuses didn't know about it prior to the britney incident."
- Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.
- Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. --Walther Atkinson 07:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)