Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safety Not Guaranteed

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 of the debate was no consensus even with strict sock/meatpuppet consideration. W.marsh 17:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety Not Guaranteed

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.

Non-notable spoof advert that circulates about the web. Is this what they call a meme? -- RHaworth 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, It's a valid internet fad and phenomenon that deserves to stay. Ernzoa 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The user of that name has 3 total edits. Statement actually made under anon IP 68.39.180.180, which has six edits.
  • Keep, It is a real internet meme and should stay Orbframe 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's informative and part of a major internet meme. RegBarc 20:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's informative like any other page. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have funny contents? Exel 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 7 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's not a JUST YTMND thing. It appeared in a newspaper, for god's sake. --roflzlz 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.165.57 (talk • contribs)
No such user, see attribution above. -Colin Kimbrell 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep, it's a valid ytmnd fad and should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgbduck (talk • contribs)
User has 2 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep!!! Don't delete it! Wikipedia must guarantee this article's safety! --risingpower 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 11 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe this is an attempt to create a meme from scratch. No vote. Ruby 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... or merge, if popularity is asserted, with list on List of YTMND fads per the standard procedure. --Kinu 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC
  • Keep or merge with List of YTMND fads but if it's being kept it needs to be rewritten so as not to sound like a joke. Cactuarenigma 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 5 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If verified, merge into List of YTMND fads, with a re-direct there (hope this terminology is correct -- this is the first time I've suggested such a thing), as it will then provide later researchers with a cross-reference from the "Safety Not Guranteed" tag. If not verified, delete -- Simon Cursitor 08:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This comment was edited by User:Stilanas [1]. I have restored it. -Colin Kimbrell 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I also vote for merge with List of YTMND fads as long as the entry includes a pic of the mullet guy. This fad has gotten too mainstream to delete altogether. --Shorty Longstrokin 10:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Please note: AFD is a discussion, not a vote. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 1 total edit. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote to keep or merge with the List of YTMND fads. This article must be kept to take wikipedia to the LIMIT! -- Ben Sullivan 7:34, 8 February 2006
Please note: AFD is a discussion, not a vote. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 3 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep". A bit too much content to be done justice on "List of YTMND Fads". SA9097
  • Keep, it's good. Bill Bisco
User has 2 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn meme, too many sockpuppets pushing an agenda on this discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This comment was edited by User:Vsf3000 [2]. I have restored it. -Colin Kimbrell 22:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, i don't see why this has to be deleted (Guest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.60.85 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge, I agree with the others here. It should be merged into the List of YTMND fads—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.133.200.237 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge as mentioned above, otherwise delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - although amusing, I don't think this is any more noteworthy than any other YTMND fad. LupusCanis 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 25 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - An internet meme which has it's own origins outside of YTMND. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    Merge with List of YTMND fads, although the ad may come from an outside source, it's meme status is only because of YTMND. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Colonel Cow 01:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Also, the anon/sockpuppet votes are irritating. --Alan Au 04:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Polite query :: by what criteria are you identifying the "sockpuppets" ? I ask, because the term seems to be thrown around on AfD like afrisbee without any hint as to how s-ps are identified or why, if they can be identified, someone doesn't just erase their entries. -- Simon Cursitor 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[[3]] (see the header about Meatpuppets, as well) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I can't confirm that any of the above are actually sockpuppets by the official definition, but that's because the votes here are the only recorded edits listed for some of the users. This implies that the accounts were created for the sole purpose of voting for this article. As much as I would love to delete those votes, removing votes is bad form. --Alan Au 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This page is virtually impossible to find. It either needs to be linked from the YTMND fad page, or given a section there. Penis Gourd 09:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 6 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Casiotone 17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 19 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its growing into a big trend --Stilanas 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge with List of YTMND fads. I'd be OK with a Delete as well; this doesn't seem to have much traction outside of YTMND. -Colin Kimbrell 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Redirect to List of YTMND fads, since it's already been smerged. -Colin Kimbrell 22:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All-your-base this thing ain't, funny on borderline it may be but sure as heck not funny enough for its own friggin' article... and looks like meatpuppets got us again, too. Can someone show them some broom? And what was the magic code that summoned the handy red-bordered, huge-exclamation-mark-sign boxie again? I forgot, never used it myself. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Read some more. If included in List of YTMND fads, this probably would need a complete rewrite anyway (as in "cut down with a chainsaw until a sentence or two remains"), so I think it's safe to stay on delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given the sockpuppet allegations, I've appended a note under the name of each user with 25 or fewer edits (regardless of their opinion on the article). -Colin Kimbrell 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sort of informative; too much information for List of YTMND fads --Evil Vin 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 14 total edits. -Colin Kimbrell 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The safety of this page was never guaranteed in the first place... but the meme extends beyond YTMND and adding it to multiple articles seems pointless. Bah --147.126.46.147 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I claim ownership of the previous vote --Nick Catalano (Talk) 22:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please note: AFD is not a vote.-Colin Kimbrell 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
User has 1 total edit. -Colin Kimbrell 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It should be linked to from the various pages that have been vandalised by YTMND addicts. Whether at the top like disambiguation or at the bottom in some section. -- J Darnley 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Let's not be hypocrites. O rly was allowe to stay around, why shouldn't this? Excuse me if the Wikipedia cultural elite thinks this is should be deleted, but I'm not buying it. --Tykell 23:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: If Numa Numa guy gets an entry there's nothing stopping this. Noclip 23:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google results for ("numa numa" -newgrounds): 798,000. Google results for ("o rly" -4chan): 492,000. Google results for ("safety not guaranteed" -ytmnd): 427. The difference should be pretty obvious, no? -Colin Kimbrell 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't know, but it's clearly been enough to create a massive vandal attack on Wikipedia just for the humour of it. --Tykell 02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Those results are of now. Obviously when numa numa was started, it had little or no results. Just as this may have right now. --Zeno McDohl 03:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: There are lots of things that may become notable, the vast majority of which never do. Assuming future notability for things which are not currently notable is crystal ball-ism. If/when it does, we can make a new article on it then. -Colin Kimbrell 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Yes but considering it's new, you cannot say it's not notable, because search engines do not crawl sites instantaneously. --Zeno McDohl 14:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: A direct quote from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." The burden of proof is on the one claiming notability, and if we can't verify this yet, we don't want it yet. After it becomes a verifiably notable meme, we can re-create a standalone article, if people think one is warranted. -Colin Kimbrell 14:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment: Last I heard, notability is not an official policy here. --Zeno McDohl 19:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment: You're right about notability not being a policy or guideline, but many people here see it as a logical application of WP:NOT and/or WP:VAIN, which are. Furthermore, a claim of notability made within the context of the article needs to be just as verifiable as any other fact. The article states "this internet phenomenon has found many homes", and if that's not verifiably the case, it doesn't belong in the article.-Colin Kimbrell 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment: I should probably mention that if this survives as a standalone article, it's probably going to need to be cut way back to meet with policies and guidelines. The whole "Investigation" section violates WP:OR, and the copyright status of the first image (Timetravel.jpg) is bogus, just to name two examples. -Colin Kimbrell 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This "meme" is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. 151.199.12.41 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable internet meme. --Zeno McDohl 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a fad; fads are not encyclopedic. Jolb 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hrm, are you certain about that? --Zeno McDohl 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, a list of fads is encyclopedic. Unfortunately, in-depth coverage of just one particularly lame fad is indeed NOT encyclopedic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolb (talk • contribs)
Lame eh? That would be your own opinion. Here's in-depth coverage of a fad, so I think your point is invalid. --Zeno McDohl 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We have pretty extensive coverage of fads in general[4]; the more germane question is whether this particular fad is notable among fads. We have lots of articles about sculptures, too[5], but that doesn't mean that all sculptures are inherently worthy of an article. You have to judge each case on its own merits (or lack thereof). -Colin Kimbrell 14:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge: To list of YTMND fads, as the safety of that page is guaranteed. The writer probably only did this once before, and didn't bring his own weapons. FireballX301 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's well detailed, gives insight into the fad. If we're going to delete every YTMND fad, why not delete every Beatles song and put them all under "List of Beatles songs." Okay, that's a stretch, but still. Several Wikipedia users seem to have a bias against YTMND. After all, Brian Peppers is definitely notable, and his article keeps being deleted. Also, Colin Kimbrell, stop being a dick. And go ahead and check, you'll see I've made plenty of edits.--Josh 08:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Just for the record, I had never even heard of YTMND until Wikipedia. -Colin Kimbrell 14:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I had never heard of Brian Peppers either, but he's apparently been deleted three times, for reasons ranging from "attack page" to "copyvio".[6]. -Colin Kimbrell 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, I didn't realize that there was copyvio going on in that article.--Josh 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a really complicated situation; he's actually on deletion review right now. [7] -Colin Kimbrell 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a discussion, not a vote. --Zeno McDohl 22:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Your discusion is going on above.Geni 23:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does Colin Kimbrell keep listing the number of edits each commenter has made? Do you need to edit 100 pages to get into the Secret Wiki Adventure Club?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.56.11 (talk • contribs)

generaly the exact number is undefined.Geni 23:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Because the people who advocate deletion want to make sure that the administrators ignore people who came to edit a particular article. I don't like it, you don't like it, but we just have to live with it. I had to deal with this once. Thankfully, my work was saved. Crazyswordsman 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Because several people upthread had made allegations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and given that, I thought it'd be best if everybody's cards were out in the open. It also makes things simpler for the closing admin. Of course, I'd already mentioned this upthread here (down at the bottom), so if you really wanted to know, you could've just read the rest of the thread. -Colin Kimbrell 14:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep or Merge/Redirect. The fad is growing, and it is an original one, too. Crazyswordsman 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right on both counts, though it's certainly not growing very fast. In the two days since I last checked, '"safety not guaranteed" -ytmnd' has increased to 472 hits on google, an increase of 45. The people pushing this had better hope it's a geometric progression, rather than an arithmetic one. -Colin Kimbrell 15:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It has 11 pages on YTMND, which means it is growing fast enough. Crazyswordsman 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, but notability within YTMND isn't enough in-and-of itself; that's exactly why we have List of YTMND fads in the first place. We need outside sources of crossover to general popular culture if we want a standalone article on the subject. -Colin Kimbrell 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable nonsense. This isn't a real fad. This is completely pointless, original research, and makes a joke out of the encyclopedia. —Cleared as filed. 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.It was an ad in a newspaper, and completely genuine. Yes, YTMND has picked it up, but it was a real event, and therefore a legitmate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.47.120 (talk • contribs)
  • Incredibly Strong Delete So Powerful It Overrides All Keep Votes On All Articles For Deletion For Every Wikipedia Site Existing In All Parallel Dimensions For All Eternity. "Safety Not Guaranteed" was not a true Internet fad beyond YTMND, and it didn't originate from YTMND.com either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.151.144 (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect to List of YTMND fads - This meme is not internet wide, but is only on YTMND and is thus not notible enough for its own article. VegaDark 05:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability has not been established. -- Pierremenard 08:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kuralyov 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep User: Dr. R.K.Z Define "not a true internet fad", YTMND in itself is one of the most profilic internet meme sources on the 'net and has generated attention on other sites and forum communities. Peanut Butter Jelly started somewhere did'nt it? Keep, its' slowly becoming a fad on its' own merits
  • Keep A valid article. Xizer 00:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep How else is the world going to know about internet fads. Wikipedia is supposed to be about knowledge of everything right? --68.83.243.92 01:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. There are many things that have been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia, and others who's questionability is unnecessary. This is one of those gray areas. Personally, I think this is fine (it was in a newspaper), but there are others who disagree and think more references are needed. Also, Wikipedia can't be the first place something is published. That would be "original research," which is illegal here. Sorry.Crazyswordsman 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolute Delete - Looking at the Google results, this is obviously not a popular meme, which is why they have tried using Wikipedia to spread the thing. I can't believe all the new users just spamming this keep for this. - Hahnchen 08:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only socres a couple of hundred Googles - it's a minor YTMND fad, not even an Internet meme. Wikipedia is not the YTMND FAQ. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this is either redirected or deleted outright, it should probably be protected. -Colin Kimbrell 13:20, 14 February 2006 (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.