Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this a few hours early. The debate is already 139KB long, one of the longest and craziest debates I seen, and the results seem rather obvious even though I don't agree with an article nither. I watchlisted this for a couple of days now, and a good 75% of the votes aren't valid, mainly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE without a reason and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with comments like if it's kept, wikipedia is going to be a joke. Another delete comment that I saw is that there was no reliable sources, but there is several non-trivial ones, from reliable websides and alot of international coverage that sadly makes the fails WP:BIO agruements moot. With the few that are still valid, it's sad to say it's mainly in the keep side with Irishjp and 64.190.140.138 as the most valid in the delete side. It can be renominated for deletion in a few months if he's no longer in the news, as WP:BLP1E starts to apply. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

More crap off the Internet. 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)[reply]

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Votes

(So there is no confusion, this is not a serious vote.)

Comments

  • 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)[reply]
  • Response - Don't make absolutes. People want this deleted because it is merely an attention-seeking teen with no cultural significance and very questionable notoriety beyond a single overblown Youtube incident. Encyclopedia dramatica exists for things such as this nonsense.
  • Consideration - Given it's exposure, argument could be made for the -video- having suitable notability. Joe Average may well be aware of it due to the press coverage, but it's doubtful anyone not more than passingly familiar with the whole affair already would know the originator's name outside of the context of this one isolated incident. This may be better served as an example or sub of the viral video article. Stugein 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're not alone. Keith Olbermann made the same mistake: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubUHbwAzydc Ichormosquito 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Really. And your passive-aggressive rhetorical-question crap about "are you honestly still maintaining" WAS intended to be helpful -- or is this another exception you've granted yourself? At this point, I'm thinking I could start a drinking game based on each time you pull a new rhetorical dodge out of your hat. Good thing the weekend's coming up or I'd be unfit for work. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is not about me or my apparent "rhetorical dodges". If you don't believe this article should be included in wikipedia then please explain precisely what policy it does not meet, and why it does not meet it. Fosnez 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deserving to be notable is not the same as being notable, only the latter matters here. Debolaz 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As mentioned before, notability is not the same as being a celebrity. Debolaz 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong keep 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - A nobody criticising wannabes who criticize nobodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.217.240 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable, another 15 minutes of fame case. Completely irrelevant and non-encyclopedic. --71.231.7.20 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
More like the Jeffree Starr who bludgeoned his way, tirelessly and relentlessly onto Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
-- Jreferee (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Also, note the comparison to Warhol. Who's being mocked here, in your opinion? Tizio 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Comment "Notable entertainer???" According to whom??? Crocker telling the media that he is an entertainer "with a huge fan base" on the internet does not count. As someone mentioned way up above, this page has been deleted once or twice before, before Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone" video surfaced. Almost speedy deletes, if you go back and look at them. I agree with Phirazo, if Crocker belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it is only as a footnote on the Britney Spears article, and not a entire page devoted to him. This article needs to be deleted. 64.190.140.138 15:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is one source about the subject of the article that is before Wednesday. The sources are about the video, not the person, and there is little that can be said about him. --Phirazo 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.185.124 (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Partial Answer. He has been more prominent in the last year but emerging information suggests he was developing a cult foloowing over eight years ago as a pre-teen on Aol. That has yet to be sourced so has not entered the article in any form. Benjiboi 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as demonstrated by coverage in multiple (international, even) reliable sources. That the world would decide to make someone like him notable may be depressing and wrong, but it's not our place to judge the world's tastes, just to document them. --tjstrf talk 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


An "its unequivocally time for a section break" section break!

FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Notability is permanent. Or perhaps I should say WP:NOT#CRYSTAL? It's no more appropriate to claim an article should be deleted because you think it will have stopped being notable in a few months than it is to claim an article should be kept because you think it will become notable in a few months. --tjstrf talk 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability is not permanant, and i found the policy, here. --Jac16888 10:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i wrote that wrong, Notability is permanant, Crocker's is not long-term, it is "a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability"--Jac16888 10:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use presumptions of future (non-)notability to judge the page one way or another. --tjstrf talk 10:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an online ENCYCLOPEDIA not a place for trash like this person. He'll be famous for a little while and then he'll disappear into oblivion and people won't have to hear him make silly dramatic outbursts about Britney Spears. Sound of white 11:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are stub articles on Wikipedia that do not have any much notability as this guy and his Britney video and his other fake incest video. Many of the free software stubs and Olympians and sucky players in professional football and basketball stubs out there do have a Wikipedia page yet pale in comparison to him. ...though I believe that this guy is an attention whore. — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, secondly, how can you compare the notability of an Olympic athlete or professional sports player, no matter how good or bad they are at the sport, to this guy? Its an entirely different level of notability--Jac16888 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point I agree. Your second point you can compare notability though "general notability guidelines" found in WP:NOTABILITY. Interesting thing here is that there's Chris Crocker the football player and Chris Crocker the internet celebrity ... looking at the football players references which he hasn't any I would delete him too. Some would even fix the disamb so that the internet celebrity page would be immediately shown. — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came to this page after spotting the video on an internet forum. Wanting to know who the guy is, I visited here first as I reckoned someone with that many YouTube views is bound to have a Wikipedia page. I was right. I doubt I'll be the only one to come to the page via this route, and given the fact that it's one of the most commented-on videos on YouTube, his MySpace is one of the most viewed profiles on the site and the Leave Britney Alone vid has spawned a number of parodies, one from National Lampoon, how could he not be notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.12.112 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So 3 million people wasted 2 minutes of their life watching this video. You could maybe make a case that the video is notable (but then again, by a similar reasoning every new Pepsi commercial would have its own WP article), but the author is definitely not notable unless & until he gains a significant and consistent viewership such as 'geriatric1927'. Eseymour 13:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I thought geriatric1927's vids had more views than they did, since he was the #1 subscribed director at one time. I guess YouTube didn't have as many users at that time. Still, Crocker is only the #25 most subscribed director, and he's surely more popular right now than he ever has been. Eseymour 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - So he reached Mega internet stardom with his Britney vlog; he was already well known in and out of the YouTube community well before that. Further, the article is better sourced than 90% of the articles on this site. Perhaps people think the guy is silly, but that is no reason to delete him from this site. The joy of a net 'pedia is being able to cover even minor subjects without space concerns. Jeffpw 13:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear example of recentism, as internet meme who gained his fifteen minutes of fame (even if I doubt if he is that famous outside the US, but that's not a good reason for deleting the article anyway). Number of YouTube contacts are unrelevant in this particular case, as Google hits are. --Angelo 15:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fourteen minutes, fifty-nine seconds and counting. Some of the purported sources don't even appear to mention the guy, and in any case are about the Britney debacle not about this individual. I see no non-trivial sources about this person. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We would absolutely not be having this discussion if it were not for the fact that the person in question is mainly famous on the internet. For some reason, internet-related articles seem to draw a lot of controversy and cause all the little hivemind deletionists to come out of their basements and vote "DELETE, NON-NOTABLE, UNENCYCLOPEDIC" even when, as in this case, the article completely meets notability guidelines as it has MULTIPLE links discussing the person in question. If we can have articles about minor actors who played bit parts in movies or commercials, such as Clara Peller, then we have no reason to delete this article based on "temporary notability" or any other such nonsense. --BlarghHgralb 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason Internet memes get nominated for deletion is because they are typically so short-lived. There's just no comparison between this guy and Clara Peller (the "Where's the beef" lady). Outside of a small group of fans, no one knew this guy before a few days ago. "Where's the Beef" is still part of America's cultural memory over two decades later. Maybe everyone will remember "Leave Britney Alone" a year from now, but right now there's no indication that this guy's fame is more than "a short burst of present news coverage." Furthermore, the guideline states that "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Eseymour 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just about to say the exact same thing. Some phenomenon may be temporarily famous on the internet, but unless it has some impact on the wider world, it's not notable. (Examples of internet phenomena that did achieve wider impact are Lonelygirl15 and the Star Wars kid.) Clara Peller is familiar to a generation (even if they don't know her name) because she was on national television; Chris Crocker is unknown beyond the relatively small blogging/forum/YouTube community that discovered him in the first place, and is likely to remain that way. Terraxos 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Where's the Beef lady had an impact on a generation, but you would never know that in the 80s. How are you so sure that Crocker wont become a new annoying catch phrase. After all it's only been a few days. Saopaulo1 05:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what exactly makes Chris Crocker any less notable than the Star Wars kid or Lonelygirl15? They've receieved about the same amount of coverage as Chris Crocker has. --BlarghHgralb 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the MSNBC source is a blog. The byline is accompanied by a cartoon caricature of the writer. This is not typical of straight news articles on the site (or anywhere). Eseymour 16:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm not sure you can dismiss the YouTube community so hastily. Internet video and YouTube in particular are big deals, as sources like this one released yesterday assert: http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/13/video/. Internet video has a mainstream appeal; we're not just talking about memetics.

Ichormosquito 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyway, Delete. Vote changed to Keep - see below. This article may meet the letter of WP:N by including multiple, independent reliable sources, but it doesn't conform to the spirit - is the subject really notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and going to stay that way? To me, the answer is obviously not - no one will be talking about Chris Crocker in two weeks, let alone six months. Hence, this is a classic example of recentism, and 'internet fame' to boot (as I argued above, brief internet fame does not equate to notability in the real world). While I realise it's taboo to even mention the other place here... this article belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica, not Wikipedia. Let's leave the arguments about minor 'internet people' to them, please, while we concentrate on covering real life. Terraxos 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It really enhances wikipedia's reputation that it is the only forum big enough and with a participation wide enough to keep track of pop culture things like this. It is notable, and wikipedia is the first place to come when looking for information about this type of stuff. --Ehinger222 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears, after reading all this, to be at least just notable enough. Question for Terraxos, just above me... does notability "degrade" over time? Fame certainly may. Britney Spears gets more fame and press today than a man born and notable for something in the year 1857. But if the notability, once set for the man born in 1857 does not "degrade", or have a half-life, why would or could the notability of someone born in the latter half the 20th century degrade? • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability only lasts if there is a good reason for it to last. A person born in 1857 might still be notable today if s/he did something of lasting importance; but someone who was simply well-known for a while, then faded away, might not be. See Notability is not temporary, which states that if someone was only notable for a brief period in the past, they may not meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia today. Of course, in this case, it's disputed whether Chris Crocker is even notable now, let alone 100 years in the future - hence we're having this AfD. Terraxos 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it troubling that you skipped over WP:BIO's "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." According to this source, he had a "cult following", a direct quote, even before the Britney video. According to this one: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." Ichormosquito 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you guys have convinced me: it looks like Chris Crocker has received more mainstream attention than I realised. I still DON'TLIKEIT, but I accept he meets notability, and have changed my vote above to Keep. Terraxos 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important distinction - There's a difference between the "Britney" video being notable and its author being notable. The fact that there have been X million views of the vid and various parodies made strengthens the case for the video being notable, but not necessarily the author. Eseymour 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. There is no practical, cultural or historical significance for this article or it's subject. Outside of this one passing "viral video" event there is no substantial notoriety for the subject. My local news also did a piece on pet adoption, but I don't think every kitten in the segment needs it's own encyclopedia entry. Stugein 20:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is exactly what wikipedia is good at - collecting and cataloguing even the weirder strands of information that make up the tapestry of life.
LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE! - The Daddy 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I deliberately searched for 'chris crocker' on wikipedia, and found this article -- this is a good use of wikipedia. I wanted to know what the Seth Green parody video was parodying, and this answered my question and gave me more info. I don't care for any of the subject matter, but that's not the point. There are going to be a lot of niches, and a lot of subjects that a huge majority of people don't want to hear about, or don't care about, and I'm sure this is one. But there is no reason not to cover it. Most people arguing for deletion seem to be arguing from moralisitc grounds (e.g., this is evidence of the debasement of culture), or because they believe that this is an article designed for PR, promotion, self-aggrandizement, or vanity. It isn't our job to police the culture, so the first argument is moot. And from the comments there seems to be sufficient documented interest in C.Crocker to justify an (objectivity-written) article. Even if this describes cultural ephemera (which it might not be -- how long does it take before our subjectively understood notions of 'persistence,' 'brevity,' etc. are tipped to the other side? ) why shouldn't wikipedia cover cultural ephemera? This is an issue that is going to come up repeatedly, and while I think it might be argued that classification of such articles might be an issue, it seems like the article's subject here is sufficiently referenced to merit an entry. Skandha101 22:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this individual arouses pity on my behalf, granted I can only laugh for the first 10 seconds into the video before closing it, the numbers don't seem to lie. Four million views on YouTube. Press coverage by the major news outlets. I don't the non-notability argument is out the window. The article itself needs to be expanded upon, maybe some cited statements by psychologists who could give some expert analysis based on what little background information is known about him. I know that sounds harsh in terms of sympathizing with his feelings, but there has to be some reason as to why the Britney Spears performance and backlash has driven this individual to complete madness. In short, an expanded NPOV paragraph would be convenient. --205.237.161.180 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Leeroy Jenkins (which started as a Youtube phenomenon itself) is keepable, then so's the entry for a whiny 19-year-old humiliating himself and becoming a viral meme in the process. The entry for Crocker contains about 3 times as many references as Leeroy Jenkins as well. I don't like it, but there it is. Longshot14 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't have all that much to say, it's all been covered by the multitude of non-notable deletes above. MookieZ 00:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but not in its current form. It seems difficult to argue for deletion when Star Wars Kid and The Bus Uncle have articles. However, I feel the article in its current form exaggerates the importance its subject. If the article is to stay it should be re-written as an article on a cultural phenomenon, as I do not think Chris Crocker as a person is sufficiently notable to warrant the kind of biographical article we currently have. --carelesshx talk 01:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not delete this Wikipedia entry, as he is in fact, an internet celebrity now.(UTC)Comment Page views on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.134.116 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it wasn't notable then people wouldn't be coming here en mass to argue about it 24.210.79.18601:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No comment, other than WP:N says it's clear. 72.77.5.2 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Are nationally or internationally reported "stupid criminals" going to get their own pages next? Шизомби 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no prejudice against deleting in another AfD a year or so down the road if this proves not to have the lasting encyclopedic worth that the lonelygirl15 or Star Wars Kid apparently have. The bottom line is that people use Wikipedia as a reference tool, even for inane pop culture crap like this . If people are going to see mention of this kid on Carson Daily, Fox News and other reliable and mainstream sources then they are going to go to Wikipedia to read more. It would be a disservice to our readers to not fill our purpose. While I think there is a heavy dose of recentisim here, anti-recentisim is just as deadly and counterproductive to writing a worthwhile encyclopedia here. It is very short-sighted and narrow minded to try and judge the lasting worth of something that just happened. The idea that notability is permenant is a joke. It's temporal and eventually gives way to lasting encyclopedic relavance. Notability is based on what the available reliable sources take note of and write about. Lasting encyclopedic relevance is based on what our readers will be searching for years and decades down the road. That determination takes time to evaluate and if in a years time it becomes more clear that this dude is a flash in the pan then the community will be in better position to delete the article. 205.157.110.11 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hang on, I could have sworn that an article about this same guy was up for deletion a couple of months ago...pretty much the same content, with the major exception of the video which is such a subject of interest...or maybe I'm just imagining it. Anyway, I'm a bit divided here, because several things are clear. 1), this person/the video has indeed recieved significant coverage by the media, which makes it seem as though it is in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, 2), notability is not temporary, and this person/video may or may not have the longevity necessary for an article, 3) even if notability does exist, it is quite likely that the notability is of the video, and not the person, and that to have a biographical article for a person, while it is in fact a creation of theirs that is notable may be a bit of misplaced judgement, and 4), this article seems really familiar. So overall I don't have a resounding opinion here as to whether or not to delete. One thing that I will say is that Wikipedia definitely needs more clearly defined guidelines as far as intenet celebrities and viral videos are concerned, and fast. Calgary 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ANY person can consider one an "internet celebrity". To be honest, this person won't get anymore famous as "Perez Hilton" - who I think shouldn't even have a Wikipedia article. Just because he made a blog? Come on. Has this person made any marketed sales or made any public appearances on TV? No. He's just a guy with a camera and puts his videos on Youtube. That's it! Furik 04:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And yet, I can't turn a corner without hearing about Perez Hilton, in the real world as well as online. And to address your questions about the Crocker kid: 1) What do marketed sales have to do with celebrity and fame, let alone simple notability? 2) Yes, unfortunately, he has made public appearances on TV. But, again, what does that have to do with anything? Does your life revolve around television? The frightening and annoying nature of this example aside, I find the mockery of Internet fame amusing...when Lucille Balle left B movies to go into television, televison stardom was mocked and looked down on. It was more than just a few rungs below even B movie stardom. So the fact that you seem to imply that appearing on television makes someone a real celebrity, as oppposed to an Internet one...well, it's amusing.--Adam the Alien 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, i'd like to thank you for your reply. Now, i'm not saying i'm a constant TV watcher at all but i've never seen any public appearances from this kid so I was wondering, excluding his "Leave Britney Alone" video, how he has even become an "internet celebrity". As for the marketed sales thing, I see a celebrity as someone who at least makes a profit from something or is involved in something that sells - musician, actor, all that. Could even go as far as saying a painter or author but I have yet to see this kid become a celebrity. Furik 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep in mind that Wikipedia recognizes a celebrity as "A celebrity is a widely-recognized or famous person who commands a high degree of public and media attention.". Celebrity has absolutely nothing to do with the significance of a person's contributions or, more to your point, the medium of a person's fame. Television may have been around for longer, but the internet is one of the most major forms of media in existence, and comes close to rivaling television as the world's greatest media outlet. That being said, regardless of how much legitimacy one may feel the internet reputes, the internet is indeed a media outlet, and must be recognized as such for a definitive conclusion to be reached here. Calgary 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's as notable as any other one hit wonder, be it a music artist or a movie actor. The medium of the one hit wonder does not automatically make him less notable. Plus he's gotten a ton of nationwide media attention.Heavytundra 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I say delete it and rewrite it focusing on the videos and not the person. Here's why: The notability and phenomenon of Chris Crocker's "work" (distraught videos over Britney Spears) certainly supersedes the notability of the person himself. Thus the article should be primarily about the videos, and not the person. I think that it should be deleted and rebuilt. Otherwise we have a double standard here on Wikipedia, as displayed in the example of goatse.cx. With the Goatse article, the person's work (ie, horrifying pictures of a overly-stretched sphincter and their subsequent website) is the entire focus of the article, while the person himself is not mentioned by name. And yet, there is verifiable evidence that his name is known and that he is certainly notable, internet-wise, for his photograph(s). Witness a piece of discussion from the Goatse article:

I have found some evidence that the man is in fact Kirk Johnson. I typed his name in google (along with "goatse" so we can results of him and not the boxer) [16]. Most of the results say that the man is Kirk Johnson. Not only that, I viewed the HTML source of the goatse.cz mirror, and the keywords in the code contained "Kirk Johnson" in it. Here is the source: 

<HTML><HEAD><!-- Start Quantcast tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_qacct="p-95ACIuCMJpQa2";quantserve();</script>
<noscript>
<img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-95ACIuCMJpQa2.gif" style="display: none" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></noscript>
<!-- End Quantcast tag -->
<TITLE>Goatse - the official site</TITLE>
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Goatse, Goatse.cz, Goatse.cx, Goatsecz, Goatsecx, Anal Stretching, Goatse Man, Kirk Johnson, 
Shock site, Tubgirl, the giver, the receiver">
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="The official Goatse site at Goatse.cz. Visit us to find what you're looking for...">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="info@goatse.cz">
<META name="Rating" content="General">
<META name="Robots" content="All">
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE="5" FACE="Helvetica, Arial, San Serif, Serif, Times"><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+2">
....
style="text-decoration: none" href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><span style="color:#000000;">dolphinsex</span></a>*
src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">

</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-422197-6";
urchinTracker();</script>
 </BODY></HTML>

Now, if you look on the line that says 'META NAME="Keywords"', you'll see Kirk Johnson's name in the list of keywords. Not only that, you can also see the alt attribute "stinger" in the source aswell, which was removed recently.

Also, on the goatse mirror, there is an information page that's a biography of goatse. They also mention the identity of him [17] (safe to view). It says he's a regular poster to the newsgroup "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal". Since it's mentioning that Kirk Johnson is the goatse man and a regular contributor to an anal site of some sort, I don't think this is violating the WP:BLP policy. And to make things even better, the work on that site is licensed under the GFDL, just like Wikipedia.

Second, it also mentions the origin of the alt attribute "Stinger" of the #quake channel, and the origin of the word "goatse". Although it says some of it is from the Wikipedia article, notice how it says "some of it".

Now, I know this may not be sufficient evidence for the origin of the term "goatse" and the "stinger" alt, but I think it's sufficient evidence that the man is Kirk Johnson (The page source, the google results...). Any questions? --AAA! (AAAA) 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... but when I first started reading your comment it appeared to be a heavy dose of original research, once I got to the end however and saw the source I can tell now it is ok. So I'll say this looks fine and you can add it in, so long as you carefully source it and do not add in any of your own extra original research. Mathmo Talk 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Kirk Johnson" and "goatse" and you'll see evidence that the "Goatse photograph" is of Kirk Johnson, and yet, despite the research done by AAA!' (AAAA), as well as Goatse's identity being "known" (as much as anyone's identity can be know on the internet), the Goatse Wikipedia article does not mention him by name. How is Kirk Johnson any less notable than Chris Crocker? I'd say he's not. But it doesn't matter: Goatse guy (and many others) is known by his "work" on the internet, as is Chris Crocker. Delete Crocker's name and make the article about his viral videos. The videos, not the person, are what's significant culturally. Zebraic

Comment. Seriously - you just posted this massive piece on the article's talk page, are you hoping to build interest in that article or some other agenda? I'll give you a good faith pass that you are just providing a lengthy example but I think brevity would help make your point. Benjiboi 05:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely defending my stance. I have NO agenda about the Goatse article. I just cut and pasted my argument because my argument is the same. I really would rather not talk about Goatse, in fact. I'm merely using an illustration. Zebraic 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Edit: And you're probably right about the brevity; I felt like I ought to be thorough at the time. That's a good point, though. Thanks! Zebraic 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took a lot of the HTML out to make it shorter. Zebraic 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must delete? -- But|seriously|folks  06:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read my argument? Why do these things always burst into flame wars? That comment is dismissive and inasmuch I find it bordering on a personal attack on me. Please don't do that. Thanks. Zebraic 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, but I guess I don't understand it. It was obviously well intentioned, so I have stricken through my flip comment. Please accept my apologies. -- But|seriously|folks  16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Apology accepted. If you go to the discussion of the article we're reviewing, there's a shorter argument by me, following this one, under "Viral Video?". Like I said on the talk page, I'm through talking about this though. Zebraic 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTE "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This is 15 minutes of fame. Delete it. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's admirable that you are willing to note policies but it would be better to follow them Per WP:NOTE. Benjiboi 06:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

  • Comment: I stated my position for keeping this article earlier, but I don't understand the justification for deleting this article yet allowing William Sledd to have one. Aren't the circumstances the same (with the explicit exception of the recent Chris Crocker video phenomenon, which would only advance his notability)? Keithbrooks 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured. :) Keithbrooks 09:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of how long he stays famous, this is a pop culture sensation that should be catalogued as a portrait of what was happening in September of 2007. Wikipedia is an amazing resource to amass data on what shaped our world at any time. Who are we to say that 5 years from now, someone wouldn't want to see what was occurring in pop culture during this time? Danflave 07:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, about half the references are about the Britney Spears concert none of which mention the subject or are youtube.com or myspace.com links which are not reliable. If sources cannot be found on the basic information then it cannot be considerably notable. Also they are all web-references, notable "internet-celebrities" are in newspapers and other reading material. Wait a few years and nobody will remember this guy. Quote from WP:NOTE "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability".--The Negotiator 09:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sheer number of secondary sources that have mentioned him and reviewed him as a person satisfies WP:WEB. Buspar 09:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because of significant coverage on Countdown with Keith Olberman and The Soup. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Mega Ultra King-Sized Adjective (for all the good it does) Delete. The only reason this ginger beer has received any coverage is because the very concept of some girl (oh how wrong we were!) breaking out the waterworks over something as inane and sad as Britney Spears is laughable...and sad...mostly sad...and frightening. Probably slightly less notable than that clever parrot who died recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradeash (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but this is a public forum, and such deregatory terms are unnecessary.
  • Strong Keep. He's been on Keith Olbermann, on several late night talk shows...look, when did having a Wikipedia article become a prestigious honor? He is something of a pop culture icon (At least on the internet) at this point. Why is Chocolate Rain notable? Why is Tila Tequila notable? Face it, the internet is one of, if not the biggest form of media today. Since he is currently one of the biggest "stars" of the internet, I see no reason as to why this article should be deleted. Irk Come in for a drink! 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, even if a flash in the pan (what is not?). Haiduc 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you really can't say delete just because he was notable via the internet! How do you think Jimbo was made famous? Via the internet! By creating THIS website! Davnel03 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:NOTE & WP:WEB, with multiple reliable sources, so keep. All the keep arguments I could make have been made. — Becksguy 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Keep The topic apears to have significant recognition. History is not always pleasant nor are hsitoric figures consistently admirable. We don't ask for greatness or importance, just that the topic be noticed. I am sad to see this shameless manipulator meet our criteria, but I am concerned that manipulating the rules to exclude him/her would cause more harm than good. On the other hand, I think the article needs to be rewritten limited tot he pertinent verifiable facts. --Kevin Murray 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LEAVE CHRIS CROCKER ALONE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.221.167 (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just saw a reference to this guy on a message board and hit wiki to find out who he is instead of having to watch what appear to be insufferable videos in order to find out the hard way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IvyGold (talk • contribs)

Another arbitrary section break

FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • KeepStrong Keep Even though this will just stand as a rallying cry for people who want to delete articles for their own personal reasons, regardless of community consensus, we do have standards and should stick to them. And this is actually an excellent case for why we should be consistent, because it avoids questions of bias, which are otherwise unavoidable if we make subjective judgments as so many have. The article cites enough mainstream sources to firmly establish notability, and uses many additional sources to produce a detailed bio that covers more than just the video. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, but that and $2.00 will get you on the NYC Subway. Changing my vote to strong keep--now that I see the video has been widely parodied, including by notable comedians Jimmy Kimmel and Seth Green, the topic clearly has wide interest in the outside world. Humor requires a shared understanding, and works of parody are an excellent secondary source reference for notability. Dhaluza 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC), revised Dhaluza 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And I'll just second what Dhaluza has put so articulately above. Annoying isn't a criteria for deletion. Into The Fray T/C 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Most here are calling for deletion on the basis of "I Don't Like It". The subject matter is certainly notable as defined by policy - citation material is everywhere. AlexReynolds 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Internet Celebrity? Where do we draw the lines, there's millions of these people. Zodiiak 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-loathing keep - no doubt about the notability. But what a sad world. Mind you, I am ill, so leave me alone. The Rambling Man 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very few of the delete votes have been pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'll freely admit that I believe the attention his "Leave Britney Alone!" video attracted is yet another sign of the decline of Western civilization and further proof that the Internet is cruel, but that is not why I !voted delete. My primary concerns are that his notability is fleeting (WP:NOT#NEWS), and he is only known for one thing (WP:BLP1E), being the "Leave Britney Alone guy". There is a consensus (sort of) at Star Wars kid not to mention the Star War kid's name, even though it can be sourced to reliable sources. The "Leave Britney Alone!" video may perhaps be notable, but Chris Crocker is not. What is known about this guy other than he made the video? --Phirazo 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been a large number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments, if not a large percentage given the number of commenters. But there have also been a lot of novel interpretations of WP:N and WP:BIO, including yours above. Notability, at least as defined on WP, is not fleeting. Once the threshold is crossed, there is no going back. Notability only requires that RS have already taken sufficient notice--it has no bearing on the future interest. WP:NOT#NEWS is a separate thing, and this excludes subjects which are only relevant in a current news context, and cannot be contextualized in an encyclopedia. It's only applicable to things that get very brief or routine news coverage, not someone that gets this much coverage (deserved or not). WP:BLP1E is not applicable, because the subject was seeking the publicity, and was also recognized for prior work. I just don't see a good reason to throw guidelines out the window to try to pretend this did not happen. Dhaluza 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indent reset * Comment. The MySpace and Youtube refs were used to provide factual information about what was said, how many views, date added, rankings at each site, numbers of videos on site presently, etc. to supplement what WP:RS were asserting. Per WP:SELFPUB may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I wouldn't have kept any material in that I thought was violating the spirit of these policies and indeed have been working to revert and warn editors who have been adding material that does violate policies. Benjiboi 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This AfD appears to be about two issues, WP:NOT and WP:BIO.
WP:NOT, this article is about a living person who has received a significant degree of attention by both the internet community and major world media outlets, thus it is a sutible topic for wikipedia.
WP:BIO, does this article meet the requirement of notability? He meets "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The coverage is not trivial because it is so widespread internationally. He also meets "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." as described on several of the news sources and thus qualifies under "Entertainer". Is the notability temporary? The major media attention may be temporary, but it is documented that he had posted videos on youtube that received significant numbers of viewings as far back as January, which suggests that his following is not temporary.
--Mattarata 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the Chocolate Rain guy has a page why can't Crocker have one? ۝ ۞ ░ 20:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep WP:ILIKEIT. Reinistalk 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he has gotten world wide media attention. Thats enough IMO. bbx 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. And the bulk of the article is about his recent videos about Britney Spears - a current event and not notable at that - not an analysis of his internet celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.184.42 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if the popularity dwindles in a few weeks it will still be an example of internet celebrity.Joshua4 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above - example of Internet celebrity, also a well written article, with verifiable sources --bdude the duck 23:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the person passes WP:BIO with flying colors. At the time of this writing, there are 38 different reliable sources written about the subject. It is my opinion that WP:BLP1E does not apply as notability was mounting many months in advance of the publication the infamous Britney Spears video. I do not understand why we as a community hold such a systemic WP:BIAS against these type of personalities. Yamaguchi先生 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the concern in the cases of "these type of personalities" is ephemerality. The Internet seems to magnify celebrity, distorting traditional metrics for what makes someone "celebrated". I don't know that it's systemic bias, but more a reflection of some inherent feeling by certain editors that current standards of notability aren't sufficient to cover this still-relatively-new medium. Powers T 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This perhaps illustrates a deficiency in the Notability guidelines as currently expressed. The "multiple reliable sources" metric is great for people who lived before the advent of the Internet. Now, however, the instant anyone does anything that attracts some bit of attention, the news media are all over it and directing their considerable resources to uncovering as much information about the individual as possible -- when in less than two weeks those same news media would be hard pressed to remember what the fuss was about. Yet those few, heady days of euphoric attention will be preserved indefinitely on Internet servers around the country. "Multiple reliable sources" just isn't as hard to attain anymore. Powers T 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree to a point and sadly that point seems to be getting a bit blurry as traditional media and new media outlets merge and challenge the traditional news models that many experts were trained in. I hardly expect this to be the last case we see of online celebrity raising such passionate ick feelings. Benjiboi 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without exaggerating, there are millions of YouTube participants. When one of them attracts large-scale worldwide attention from the media, it is not unreasonable for Wikipedia, the sum of human knowledge, to cover them as well. Yamaguchi先生 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment here was more on the Internet as a source of coverage than as a source of celebrity (to that, see the comment above mine). The question, I think, is this: does large-scale worldwide attention from the media mean as much as it used to? Powers T 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but what's the alternative? Just use the random opinions of WP editors? The media still have finite resources, and cannot cover everything, so they do provide a useful 3rd party filter for WP content. They can't make someone famous every day, so if we get say one new media darling per week or so, or 50 cases like this per year, so what? We are creating new articles at a rate of around 50,000 per month. It just doesn't matter. Better to stick with a reasonable system that mostly works, than to try to fix something that's not broken just because we don't like 100.00% of the outcomes. Dhaluza 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just out of interest, why're we having this discussion if the article was originally deleted? Just delete it again ... - Jigsy 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whereas the article may be controversial, there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason to delete it. Crocker has achieved a sort of 'meme-ship' on the internet; if this article is deleted, why don't we just delete 90% of the articles on Wiki's List of Internet Phenomena? There are plenty of articles on that list whose subject matter has received far less attention than Crocker has, but we still keep them, so why not this one too? Granted, I feel it should be cleaned up a little, but still, deletion takes things a little too far. 71.233.101.187 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Wikipedia is not a repository of memes. First and foremost, any need for this page is outweighed by subsections in other articles. Second, if this warranted an article, it would certainly not warrant all the biographical information. There are many YouTube celebrities and they do not warrant individual pages. File on a celebs-in-youtube section, file under each event that is notable, but do not file in a separate page. Amicuspublilius 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But then why does Wikipedia have the list of memes, and several useless articles about them? Why do people care so much about this article when there is virtually nothing, in a relative sense, happening to other articles of the like? If Crocker's article is deleted, so be it, whatever, but by the same reasoning, we should also be focusing on getting rid of the other articles about memes. I believe someone said we can leave them for Encyclopedia Dramatica. 71.233.101.187 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has media coverage and not only that, it has become a phenomenon recently due to the infamous "Leave Britney Alone" video. Reginmund 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - A fanatic and unbiased Britney Spears fan who has oh-so-happened to get about 6 million views of his videos. There's nothing notable about him, no one will care in a month's time. Bopash4 10:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "whew! take a breather!" section break!

BAM?????--Jac16888 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disagree. He is mostly notable for one event because of wider public recognition but clearly had a huge cult following prior as well as prior media interest, coverage, a TV deal and a working relationship with MTV. Benjiboi 15:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well many websites owners, websites, myspace and youtube users may have what you consider a "huge cult following", but they don't get their own page. Does having 1,000 subscribers and 1 million views to my youtube give me a huge cult following and notable? No. No MTV deal has been sealed yet. There is nothing stopping this person from being forgotten within months.--The Negotiator 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if they get media coverage for such maybe they do, Crocker certainly did. And it wasn't me calling it a cult following it was member sof the media although with so many people subscribing I think it's hard to disagree with that. If, as you suggest is possible, he falls from our collective consciousness the article can certainly be re-interpreted for just the video alone. Regardless he has gotten plenty of coverage with or without the MTV deal in place to assert notability which is what this AfD seems to need.Benjiboi 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This was on the internet fror a while. This should not be exterminated, as it shows what happens when the internet and the mainstream collide.

WngLdr34 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Was already deleted, is way overreferenced, and most of the references just have a mention of this in passing, or are from gossip mags/sites. This was big for a few days, and is not notable or worthy of an article on this site. Dannycali 17:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but, the lonelygirl15 article isn't about a person, its about the hoax that was lonelygirl15, it says nothing about the real person behind her.--Jac16888 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look no further than Jessica Lee Rose, we do have an article about the person behind the persona. RFerreira 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but reading that article, she has notability both from and beyond lonelygirl15, such as lonelygirl was actually a paying role, and has since been in a UN antipoverty campaign--Jac16888 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this discussion is a greater embarrassment to WP than the article was before it was rescued. After improvement, this whole discussion is moot anyway. Also the point about goal post shifting is right on target. People who contribute content to WP have a right to expect the community to respect its own standards, and not delete work based on arbitrary standards made up after the fact. Consensus can change over time, but it should not be interpreted as changing from time-to-time. Dhaluza 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – The sources are more than enough to keep it. I cannot view the previous article's revisions, so I don't know if it's been recreated verbatim, but I assume if it had been, a sysop would have gotten it by now. And we wouldn't be having this discussion. ABC News, MSNBC, the Times... all reliable sources, and the people arguing for deletion... have no argument, as far as I can see. It clearly meets the notability guidelines for biographies. — madman bum and angel 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong but unfortunate keep I don't like articles for YouTube celebrities who probably would only have short-lived fame but he's too famous now. He is an internet phenomenon. mirageinred 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Crocker_(internet_celebrity)&oldid=1083319048"