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.
Indiscriminate list of people in the Ice Bucket Challenge. Having a list of everybody who dumps ice water on their head and donates to charity is hardly encyclopedic, and would be similar to listing all the participants in a marathon. — Parent5446☯(msgemail)01:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge, I don't think a separate article should have been created in the first place. I understand that the list is quite long, but the majority of coverage from the Challenge seems to come from the celebrities participating in it, so it is useful in that regard.LM2000 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I didn't support splitting from the main article initially, the list has grown considerably. It's well sourced and I believe the Challenge is as notable as it is because of the various famous participants, so this list remains useful. A collapsible option on the main Ice Bucket Challenge remains a better solution than total deletion.LM2000 (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. While this list should not exist as a standalone article, I do not believe that it is as indiscriminate as the nominator claims. The overwhelming majority of people listed are notable individuals with articles whose participation is sourced by reliable media sources. So long as only notable people whose participation is sourced are included, I believe that this list will be fine for inclusion on the Ice Bucket Challenge Page (preferably under a collapsible to prevent it from taking up too much space).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I voted to merge this list into the Ice Bucket Challenge article, it looked like this:[1]. It was much shorter, better organized and sourced and listed a proportionate amount of people who were legitimately famous. Now, it is unorganized, sourced poorly, incredibly long and contains a disproportionate number of people who only just meet notability requirements and are thus not particularly famous. While I debated several people on this point, I am now going to have to agree that this list is indiscriminate, or at the very least to overly broad to be of use to anyone. While I'm exited that so many people have contributed to this cause, I think that it has ultimately been demonstrated that any living person with an article could potentially be included on this list. I would not be surprised if the number of people potentially covered by this list entered the tens or even hundreds of thousands.
Now, the reason that I originally wanted a merge was because I felt that the fact that so many notable people from so many different fields were participating was an important aspect of the Ice Bucket Challenge to cover in the main article. However, at this point it would just be simpler to create a section in the article that directly states this, and perhaps namedrop a few uber-notable individuals (such as former president George W. Bush) whose participation was covered by reliable media sources (and by reliable I mean CNN or New York Times quality, not celebrity gossip sites, not sources owned by the notable subject and most certainly not YouTube or Facebook). While it would be possible to do a selective merge, it would ultimately take far less effort to start a section in the Ice Bucket Challenge article from scratch than to merge this list. As such, I support a delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actually. I'm not sure I agree with the rationale for listing this, either. People have dumped ice water on their head in the past, and will in the future, but this list refers to a specific calling among celebrities, and isn't indiscriminate. Certainly not everyone notable will complete this challenge, and arguably, it's already on the downswing now. I'm a little concerned the list would weigh down the Ice Bucket Challenge article, which I imagine is why it was split off in the first place. As long as redlinks and entries with unreliable sources are kept out (so far, so good), I see no problem with this. --CrunchySkies (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Rename The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is a significant event in social sciences domain. A list like this will help in understanding its reach very easily. It should be renamed to 'Notable ALS Ice Bucket Challenge participants' or merge to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge article. Anu Raj (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an indiscriminate list, with no clear reason to suppose there is even a close connection between the various people so involved, and the whole thing is just plain trivial. This could be List of people who support awareness of X and would just be plain overly broad. This is just another example of extreme recentism and too much emphasis on passing fads in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is too many notable characters to merge, and also many story, such as pointing Neymar out Zúñiga. I think it has potentiality to developing as add some news. And, celebrities in South Korea (for instance, Ryu Hyun-jin) also participated it -so, size will bigger.--Reiro (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. Not sure why this list is described as "indiscriminate" as the criteria seem quite clear. I'm not saying it's very interesting or useful, but still seems to be encyclopedic. Awaiting the celebrity charity marathon with some trepidation. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a long and growing list, and can not be merged into the main article. It has got a lot of media coverage all over the world and definitely is notable. The Ice Bucket Challenge article has got over 1 million page views in the last two days alone. 117.192.170.214 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are too many mentioned now, but in a way we may think we don't know x person and then he might be important in his country? Anyhow the page is a mess now. A new editor has started categorizing, which is good, but it's done per activity. Maybe it should have remained as it was and we only should have created sections per letters and then write next to the person what he does? 83.134.218.196 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I want this page to be kept because I like knowing who has done the challenge, but that is basically WP:LIKEIT. However, the article is well sourced. JDDJS (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessively trivial information. I can understand that it overwhelmed the article, but why have it anywhere on Wikipedia? Not sure what a "notable list" is, per Étienne Dolet above; and, while the list certainly contains some notable people, I completely disagree that they're doing a notable thing. Bishonen | talk18:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and perhaps rename List of notable Ice Bucket Challenge participants. It usefully completes the Ice Bucket Challenge article, giving information that people search ; the participation of famous people to the Ice Bucket Challenge has contributed to the large media coverage (in the US and abroad) and is a thing in itself. And the list is big enough (with 268 references now) to justify its own article. Could be merged, but definitely not deleted. Bosozoku (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can anyone explain to me how the subject of this list qualifies as notable for a stand-alone list per WP:NLIST? Where is the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources of this group of people as "Ice Bucket Challenge participants"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-question - doesn't this article survive, at least partly, on the notability of the subject matter of the main article? If there are sufficient WP:RS sources supporting that, isn't this list notable by default - it's just more detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has very high notability, due to its relevancy to current events. Also, it is a list of notable people engaging in a charitable cause, which is worthy of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohfinite (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ice Bucket Challenge is the main article for the What Ice Bucket Challenge exactly is, the participants' list could be huge, there a lot of celebrities that actually are doing it and more famous people will add to this cause. Does make any sense to have an Article where the List of participants are more important than the concept of Ice Bucket Challenge? I vote for keep the main article and have an article only for the list. 8110charlie (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay, the last "keep" vote did it for me: we now have a growing sockpuppet farm voting to keep this article. There are multiple users participating in this discussion who have very few total edits and have not edited in months and in several case years. This has all of the hallmarks of one puppet-master employing multiple sock puppets to skew the vote in this AfD, including the following:
Why I am a sockpuppet? I use Wikipedia a lot but I don't edit it frequently. A coworker told me about this discussion and I were interested to participate in it. 8110charlie (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I registered recently. Because no one was doing what was necessary : 1) the list kept being deleted and created again on the main page, instead doing something clever. 2) Some people would keep deleting some names for some random reason (Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, for instance). 3) Some names were missing.Mimiru123 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to request a sock puppet investigation. This AfD smells like a giant sock puppet farm, and someone is trying to game the system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my opinion, there's no reason to suspect these are sockpuppets, and if you do, this is not the proper venue. The challenge has attracted an unprecedented amount of interest and coverage, even among young people who would ordinarily have little or no interest. The fact that lapsed editors are interested in the list is to me more of a sign that the challenge is hugely popular than a sign that something nefarious is going on. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just because some of us are not active Wiki Editors, does not make us "Sock Puppets". Is this what the whole Wikipedia Editor Circlejerk people talk about when it comes to Contributing? Instead of jumping to conclusions regarding someone having the motivation to rig the votes, how about be receptive of the fact that people care enough regarding an article's deletion to make an account/re-log in and vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohfinite (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a cute meme, and the meme itself is notable, but there is zero way a list of each notable (per WP) participate is encyclopedic material, most being primary sources. There are a few notable cases (for example, the Foo Fighters doing a Carrie-like approach to it) that have received more attention which can be used as examples, but a full list of basically what is doing a 1-minute act is a violation of WP:IINFO. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a meme, and calling it that is a real disservice and blow to the suffers of this disease, who heretofore have had little or no voice. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something being a meme is not a shameful thing. It is just that - it is something that propagated quickly on the internet through social media. It also in this case is helping a charity. Hence the need to keep the main article. But as a meme, documenting every detail is not our purpose -that's what a site like Know Your Meme can go into. We need to summarize the major point, and that, in this case, highlighting a few notable challengers, not every single one of them. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree with the nominator that it's an indiscriminate list of trivial information - celebrities pouring water over themselves for 10 seconds is a hardly notable act or encyclopedic enough for a list. However, I am torn between delete and merge into Ice Bucket Challenge as it does add to the challenge's overall notability if it's proven that lots of celebrities have taken part. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk?contribs?)00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should never have been made into a standalone list. However, I feel that it is unusual for so many celebrities, entrepreneurs and political leaders to video tape themselves getting doused with freezing water for a charitable cause. While not supporting the continued existence of this list as a standalone, I feel that the fact that so many notable people have participated in the charity is worthy of coverage within the Ice Bucket Challenge article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fair question to ask is , are those being listed (eg specifically the ones getting dumped on) actually following through on the charity aspect? The main article begs the question that one variation has people either donate $100 or dump ice water without the subsequent $10, eg just propagating the meme. As there's very little way to confirm that for some of the videos (like, its not clear from the Kermit the Frog one that there was a donation), then this is just "who helped spread the meme". Additionally, if this was a normal charity drive with an open register of donors, we would not list out who donated to that drive save for a few examples that were called out by third-parties. Every blue-linked person involved is far too indiscriminate in a case like this. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that it is relevant whether the celebrity donated money or not, as the rules consider getting drenched with ice water without donating to be a valid form of participation. I know that this has been criticized by some sources, but that is besides the point for this AfD. As for your point about charity drives, I completely agree with your point. I would note that the overwhelming majority of those who have participated are not listed. Hundreds of thousands of people have participated worldwide, but the list is obviously much shorter than that because only notable people who "were called out by third-parties" are included (any that do not met this criteria should be removed). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that it is relevant whether the celebrity donated money or not, as the rules consider getting drenched with ice water without donating to be a valid form of participation. Then this list has nothing to do with the charity effort. It's about propagating a meme, and we don't document each person that does that (even the subset of people noted by third-party sources). Since there's nearly zero effort to participate in the "spread" (filming yourself being dumped with water), that's gives no significance to this list. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rules of the ice bucket challenge are that a person either donate money or drench themselves with ice water. If they drench themselves in water, they are participating even if they have not donated money. Whether you want to call getting drenched without donating "charity" may be a point of debate, but people who do this are still participants by the definition of the challenge. I honestly do not understand how someone can fail to be a participant in an event that they are taking part in.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they aren't participating, but now from the standard of WP's indiscriminate information, this is basically an equivalent to a person using a specific hashtag. There's no effort or end result beyond a feel-good aspect. Add that this is purposed set to be a 3^N viral expansion, and there's no practical end to this list. We do not document events of this trivial nature to this level, period. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge: When this list was a part of the main article, it dominated the article both in size and in edit frequency, making maintenance of the rest of the article difficult. If it is merged back into the main article, I expect the same problems to arise again. I'm happy with deleting or keeping the page, but I oppose merging. —Mr. Granger (talk·contribs) 00:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad someone nominated this list for deletion. If not I would easily have. I totally agree with the nominator. Purely unencyclopedic list, can I add myself to the list too? I feel like that's what this list is encouraging and many of these celebrities don't even donate! JayJayWhat did I do?00:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, people are not supposed to be added to lists unless 1. they are notable and 2. their inclusion is backed up by a reliable source. So far, this list is in compliance with the guideline, so you would not be able to add yourself unless you are a notable individual (COI issues notwithstanding).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - There is no need to delete this as it is a current social craze which has been done by hundreds of celebrities. The views of some wikipedia editors should not be the ones that dimminish the celebrities who have completed this! 01:45, 22 August 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.64.38 (talk)
Just because some celebrities have taken part in a "social craze", why does that belong in a Wikipedia list? That's like having a 'List of celebrities who have been rick roll'd" or "List of celebrities who have posted a lolcat photo". I don't think it's notable enough to make a standalone list, especially when a lot of people in this list are Z-listers or only just notable enough to be on Wikipedia themselves. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk?contribs?)15:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? The celebrities who have taken part could probably buy wikipedia and a bunch of jobsworth editors do not need this much say on something that hundreds of celebrities and even former presidents have taken part in.
Comment@Dirtlawyer1: I'm embarrassed by nominated sock puppet, but I'm not sock puppet. I practice in Korean Wikipedia for 5 years[2], and have not active additional wiki accounts. --Reiro (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is indiscriminate and ill-defined, and unencyclopedic. Those are grounds for deletion, and not for a "merger." Additionally, and as a mere comment, it is an extremely asinine case of celebrities saying "LOOK AT ME!" when they pour cold water or icewater on their heads in response to a "challenge" from some other celebrity, to avoid having to make some small donation to a charity. In other cases, they do the "LOOK AT ME!" media event and also make some small charitable donation, further demonstrating the pointlessness of the "challenge." They should just get over themselves. They are not coaches who just won the Superbowl. Edison (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good summary of the problem that I'm describing in my comments above to Spirit of Eagle. It is a zero-effort feel-good publicity stunt for these celebrities, save for the handful that did something much more more interesting (eg Foo Fighters), and the brief list of those can be mentioned in prose in the main article. To document each one is feeding that publicity machine with no real reason. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate list with no specific inclusion criteria. Most of the sources are rubbish - first party Facebook, Instagram and Youtube posts do not meet WP:RS. It's unlikely that coherent criteria could ever be implemented. Modest Geniustalk10:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Modest Genius Wrong, most of the sources are reliable. Several new users or IPs have added people citing Instagram or Youtube as it was easier than looking for an article about them, but I'm sure that most of them can be backed with better sources; that problem can be easily fixed. --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the first ten footnotes on the list, five are from Facebook.com, YouTube.com or Comicbooks.ocm -- none of which satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources per WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirtlawyer1 I know, but I'm saying that this problem can be fixed and we could remove the people where nothing else can be found. So yeah we can work on finding better sources if that's truly the problem. I for example always try to have good sources when I add someone new to the list. However, if you feel that the content overall does not belong here, that's another problem. ;) --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy, but per policy, WP:PRIMARY sources are OK for simple incontrovertible facts. ("A primary source may ... be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source ....") are OK for simple incontrovertible facts. ("A primary source may ... be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source ...."). Softlavender (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SL, primary sources may be used to establish facts (but not notability), but we generally do not treat blogs and other self-published sources as reliable sources per WP:SPS and [[W{:RS]]. Bottom line: YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc., are generally not considered acceptable sources on Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't blogs, and they are not establishiing notability. They are the WP:PRIMARY sources used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Exactly per policy. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although in general I hate deleting any content from Wikipedia this list is beyond pointless and has no value. There are way too many celebrities doing it and what level celebrity should we include as a minimum (everyone from B class KPOP stars and noname US wannabe actors are doing it). The list would number in the thousands. Even as a tool to raise awareness for ALS the entire fad is useless as nearly all videos forget to ask for donations and most celebs are not donating. kav2001c (talk) 22 August 2014 (UTC)
That's entirely a judgement of the trend, and not of the notability of the trend. The fact so many notable people have been convinced to do such a strange activity is notable. Whether the campaign is effective is irrelevant. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that so many people have done it and has been documented is the reason Ice Bucket Challenge isn't going anywhere. But we don't need to document each individual person as long as sourcing points out that hundreds/thousands have done it already. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firm Delete The page is a non-encyclopedic list of "celebrities" pouring water their head. A list of those "celebrities", with RSs, who actually donated would be more beneficial. A simple video of the participants dumping water on their head does not prove they still made the $10 donation. Just because they videoed themselves pouring water on their head and posted it on Youtube, Instagram, or Facebook does not mean they participated in "charity", "philanthropy", "donations", etc. and in fact them dumping water on their head is a way of avoiding paying the $100 to ALS. The page will have high viewership for maybe another month or so and then will die down exponentially.
The list is literally growing by the minute and is getting out of control. Don't take this seriously but, it might almost be easier to note all the celebrities who have not participated in the challenge. :) Meatsgains (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thousands of celebrities around the world are doing this and the numbers of articles in this list are growing higher. I think we should add all the articles about celebrities in Wikipedia to this list in the future. And as some other users said, this list will die down exponentially a few months later.Keivan.fTalk17:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "ice bucket challenge" seems to be a notable fad. People like to appear in videos, and pretend for an instant that they are something special, and there is a weak association to a good cause. But there are numerous similar fads with articles, and the participants ARE NOT LISTED IN STAND-ALONE ARTICLES! In the articles about the other fads, only a few participants are named in the articles, because they started it, or because they were notable in how extremely they did it. See, for example: Phonebooth stuffing, Pole-sitting, Goldfish swallowing, Panty raid, Streaking, Phonebooth stuffing, Hunkerin', Planking (fad), Flash mob, and the very similar Youtube "challenges" Cinnamon challenge, Saltine cracker challenge, and Salt and ice challenge. I saw no stand-alone lists of participants other than a few mentioned in the articles for having originated it or somehow doing it in extreme or novel ways. Edison (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many people on this list are actually donating money, given they are taking the cheap way out of just dumping water on their head instead of actually donating $100 to the charity? In most cases we can't tell (I suspect some are, not all of these are avoiding the charity part, but we can't say all of them). --MASEM (t) 19:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstod the challenge. It's not a one or the other thing. The ice bucket raises awareness, and everyone who does the ice-bucket part challenge is encouraged if not expected to also donate. That's how the challenged has raised $53 million in less than two months. Softlavender (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the article states, and as I know people personally have done it, the "alternate" rules of just dousing oneself with water to avoid any charity element is commonplace, so unless the noted celebs actually state "Oh, and I donated too", we cannot assume these people are donated. You take that out, and just noting who is raising awareness of a cause by showing a 1-2 minute video on social media is far from an event we should even be documenting. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it may not be notable for other people, it is still a useful information for research purposes. Being encyclopedic needs all the data and information that it can get as long as it is well sourced. 112.198.77.131 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument (mind you, I can see how following the challenge-it-forward to investigate how the phenomena spread of interest to those in studies of social sciences but the data here is nowhere close to helping with that.) --MASEM (t) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - The challenge seems enough to pass muster, per WP:NOTE, albeit barely. A merge would only make the parent article much more unwieldy, so this seems to be the lesser of two evils. I would say revisit this after a couple months when the fad seems to have died down again before making a final decision as to its fate. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 18:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Critical article, meets any and all policies, and will eventually expand in scope to where there is no plausible way to contain in the parent. Neukenjezelf (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are multiple users participating in this discussion who have very few total edits and have not edited in months and in several case years. This has all of the hallmarks of one puppet-master employing multiple sock puppets to skew the vote in this AfD, including the following:
@TParis: Well, I don't know why you said this, but because it has 402 sources it doesn't mean that it's notable. Some of them aren't reliable. We discuss about the material of this list here.Keivan.fTalk21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: I hope someone else is kind enough to explain this to you. I'm just going to headdesk. On a related note, how is the planet Vulcan this time of year?--v/r - TP22:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: Are you taking WP:SARCASM too seriously? Usually pages in the WP namespace tagged with "Humorantipolicy" say that you should do the opposite of what you really should. (Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies, for example.) P.S. Aha, I knew I saw it somewhere! Here it is. Specifically "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool." --AmaryllisGardenertalk02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? Who said anything about a personal attack? Who am I personally attacking? I think this is the time for your to graciously step out and retract whatever argument you are trying to make. There is nothing against humor on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP06:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: I wasn't saying you personally attacked anyone, I just stated the line where it says to avoid sarcasm! Couldn't you see the bolded text? And don't say "there is nothing against humor on Wikipedia". There isn't anything against it period, but this is on AfD's page! I'm not against humor on Wikipedia at all anyway, but AfD is just not the place for it. --AmaryllisGardenertalk12:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reason by Soupy sautoy, Reiro and few others. Also, we have way too many sources and media coverige to delete it. When cure for ALS is found thanks to this, this will be even more important. This is not only trivia now, it will be historic event, i think. --94.189.198.68 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep articles based on number of sources. Additionally, the impact and importance is sufficiently described in broad terms (as in, not who did it, but estimates numbers of how many did it) at Ice Bucket Challenge, and that is in no danger of being deleted. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have time to read through all the reasons cited by other people here, but it seems to me that this is clearly notable, as large numbers of the participants listed here have their involvement listed in multiple sources online, and the list itself is well-sourced. I've already found this article useful, and unless the same type of list is also being extensively compiled somewhere else, then I'm sure many other people will as well. In fact, if it does get deleted, I might even request that a copy of its final state be moved to my userspace (if that would be acceptable), even though it wouldn't be getting updated anymore. I would support changing the title to reflect the fact that it basically just includes celebrities, though, if a new title could be agreed upon. Alphius (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to compile lists that no one else is compiling, that's original research. That's why the issue of the topic's notability is begged - not the notability of the ice bucket challenge, but the importance of knowing each person that has participated in it. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a list of notable individuals who have participated, it satisfies the requirements for a list article. James(T • C) • 3:57pm •04:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again some IP users are voting for keeping this list:
Delete What value does this article serve? Who would actually read this article? I think that if you answer that question, you'll agree this article is pointless. The only possible reason anybody might find any interest in this article is if they're perhaps some kid showing off their own name. I learn absolutely nothing of consequence from the existence of this list. David Condrey (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it would be read by celebrities wondering which other fellow celebrity has not yet been challenged. Perhaps they need their own Icebucketpedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC) (p.s. quite frankly, David, your career in afternoon TV chat-shows, and pet-food commercial voice-overs is sadly over, luvvie)[reply]
Which means as soon as the fad/viral dies out, the list becomes useless. Yet another reason to delete. (And I haven't checked but I would suspect Know Your Meme would be the best site for this information). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point in the list to be fair. I'm sure people can google who has done it and if they look hard enough they may find a list somewhere in the internetverse. But the list will keep growing. People who don't currently have a wikipedia page may, in time, become notable enough in the future and be added to the list. It will constantly get "vandalised" with people adding or deleting participants. And if it becomes a thing and occurs next year... what then? Two separate list? One giant list? Then there's the people who don't do the challenge but still make a video saying they donated (like Chris D'Elia). And then there's the categories. Currently Actors/Directors/Voice Actors/Producers/Composers etc are currently lumped together... but as the list grows the chances that these will be split into subcategories is high and that in itself will cause problems. Then there's the people who fit multiple categories so appear more than once (Victoria Beckham for example, is on the list twice). And the definition of notable is vague. Does being famous mean it is a notable video? Or is notable when a celebrity does something different? Most videos are just people saying they are doing it, they nominate the next people and then dump the water on themselves and thats it. Mark Zuckerberg's is notable because of who he nominated. Dave Grohl's in notable because of the homage of Carrie. So yeah. I'm for deleting the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.155.253 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2014
Keep I agree with all 'Keep' comments above, It is an informative list on a popular current event. Not only will this be a current issue, but it is memorable event that deserves encyclopaedic coverage. 151.229.241.50 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
