This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I don't know the process, but this article is utter crap, not worthy of being on here. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the process for deletion involves a lot more than just thinking that something is "utter crap." You'll need to be a lot more specific than that. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's deletion policy. –BMRR (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it should be deleted, as it doesn't really fit the notability guidelines. A page describing an 18 second internet video with little encyclopedic information doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. I can't really prove this by the terms of the notability guidelines page, however, as there are no guidelines for internet videos. Rectar2 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As the first video uploaded to youtube, its notable. Its the the subject of copious press coverage.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That, and it's hard to imagine how any video with over 15 million views could be considered 'unnotable'. I agree, there's nothing particularly interesting about the video. But you would need more than "I don't like it" to prove the subject doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -Jmgariepy (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The video was released in 2004. It was uploaded in 2007. The upload date is visible if you expand the description section of the page — it says "Added: May 09, 2007." That is the date that the video was uploaded to YouTube. "Released" probably refers to the date that it was originally released to the general public, which is unrelated to the date that it was uploaded to YouTube. I can see how this would be confusing. –BMRR (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that this article can be illustrated with a frame grabbed from the video and uploaded to Wikipedia under a Fair Use Rationale. The last version of the image was deleted from Commons as fair use cannot apply there. Fæ (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The article has nothing in it which requires illustration IAW the NFCC. — Fourthords | =/\= | 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion such a frame grab would meet all the criteria of NFCC and I would be happy to oppose deletion on this basis. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
What, pray tell, in the article needs particular illustration to increase its understanding? I myself find all 719 bytes to be crystal clear without requiring any copyrighted imagery to better understand it. — Fourthords | =/\= | 08:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't need to tell you, the NFCC criteria are clear and all 10 are met in this situation. Fæ (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
A screenshot would be helpful in demonstrating the quality (of lack there of) of the video. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
This page does not meet general notibility guidelines. Hence i will redirect it to jawed karim. Pass a Methodtalk 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This needs to be discussed first. The article contains multiple independent sources offering at least semi-significant coverage, and the previous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me at the zoo was closed with no consensus to delete. I don't blame you for being WP:BOLD, but in this case, given the number of people involved in that debate and the reasonable claims that it does meet WP:GNG, more discussion is necessary. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Also note that the subsequent listing at DRV stated clearly "merge/redirect can be done following a consensus on the talk page". A discussion (as has now been initiated) was very much called for. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose There is no clear rationale for a merge and looking at the AfD there was no majority of keep !votes that supported a merge, not that this would be a reason to ignore the AfD conclusion and merge anyway. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. OK, so there isn't much content here, but there are enough reliable sources covering this in detail that it would appear to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of a stricter guideline, I'm not seeing a reason why this shouldn't have a separate article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I would prefer a broader discussion than this, and a clearer manadate than that achieved (or not) at the first AfD. Therefore, per my comment at the DRV, I would favour that this be relisted at AfD. I accept that this is not somewhere to propose a merge, so any such nomination would best come from someone who actually favours deletion, and the discussion can continue from there. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this would qualify as original research since we don't know if any comments were deleted or lost since being allowed. — fourthords|=Λ=| 10:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The oldest comment on the Me at the Zoo video is not necessarily the oldest comment on YouTube. Comments were first enabled at a time when there were already many videos on YouTube. Jawed (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure this article is a stub. Stub means article that's way shorter than it could have been. It doesn't mean very short article. This article is a minor detail of YouTube, which has a much longer article. I can't think of any more information about it that's probably notable except for possibly why it was uploaded and its effect on raising awareness of the ability to upload videos and whether or not the person who uploaded it was somebody working for YouTube. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't know if really short articles that are unable to be very much longer whose topic is breifly mentioned in another much longer article in general or meant to be merged into that article, such as this article getting merrged into YouTube. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Amnesty International reveals the exact upload time down to the second
So Amnesty International has a web page which reveals the exact upload time down to the second in UTC.