Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Norris Facts 3

From 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:57Z

[edit] Chuck Norris Facts

Chuck Norris Facts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A one-line trivia mention in Chuck Norris padded out into a long promotion for a website which is now 404 anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, so, week keep. It was a notable at one point, though now far less relevant - although a newish Mountain Dew commercial with Norris references the phenomena. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Many things lose notability over time. An Enclyclopedia should be a historical record as well. Autocracy 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has other references including a Washinton Post Article. Notable history. See last AfD discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, that would fit nicely in a short mention in Chuck Norris. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Compare with All_your_base. An offshoot of Zero Wing, but an article in its own right. Chuck Norris facts were an offshoot of Chuck Norris himself, which is arguably a somewhat different case, but the phenomenon of them on the internet was an event in its own right. Really, the article should be exanded. Autocracy 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CORRECT AFD LINK -- for whatever reason the AfD link won't fix, so please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Norris Facts (2) if trying to comment from the AfD master list. Autocracy 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. It was a real phenomenon, like it or not. Needs cleanup, not deletion. No valid reason for deletion sited, as I don't see how this reads like an advertisement. Despite claims of nominator the article doesn't so much as mention the no-longer-active Web site. It's actually reasonably well done for an article on an internet meme. --JayHenry 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep You know, when I went to the article, I was expecting a huge, unmaintainable list of examples of dumb "facts," but what I found instead was a concise, fairly well-written article with only one or two examples here and there (a seemingly magical feat for an article of this kind). Plenty of coverage in multiple, non-trivial publications. This is a huge pop-culture phenomenon, not just a summary of one now-defunct website (which can be easily removed from the external links, if that's the problem). I'm actually not really sure why this has been nominated. Some of the statements could be sourced and the article could use a quick cleanup, but otherwise, I don't really see a problem. Wavy G 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As idiotic as this meme is, not only has it been a notable internet phenomenon, but—like All your base and O RLY?—it has also branched out into traditional media (ie Rolling Stone and TIME). --TBCΦtalk? 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - an excellent article about a very real and popular thing. - (Ninsaneja 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep per Wavy G. This is a surprisingly well-written article given the subject. Could use more references, I suppose, but that's not at issue here. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is a cultural movement about Chuck, but i would focus on the history of it and in what it have become today. I would not allow that it just turns into a dump place for chuck norris jokes, thats the work of unyclopedia (and there is a link there, great!. also, its fun :) --ometzit<col> 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is quite notable.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Moved discussion from "Chuck Norris Facts (2)" as this is the third nomination of this article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Notability cannot be lost with time. These still circulate, and have inspired the parody Jack Bauer Facts. Just because someone forgot to renew their domain name does not make it non-notable. Daniel Case 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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.