Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Frosties Kid (2nd nomination)

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 delete

There seems to be consensus that there isn't enough reliable material for an article. There are also biographies of living persons concerns. After one year and hundreds of edits the references remain of remarkably poor quality. The subject may merit a line or two in List of internet phenomena if it can be shown to pass the standards for inclusion in that article, and can be sourced adequately. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Frosties Kid

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/The Frosties Kid Articles for deletion/The Frosties Kid (2nd nomination)
The Frosties Kid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

sources do not show notability of the subject and arent reliable sources. tried to add tags for cleanup but tags are deleted and they say i should "prod or afd" instead. Elbowdrop 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge to Frosties if WP:RS exist, otherwise delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has some notability as a Meme/Urban myth. i have been involved with the article since its creation and it has gathered more comment than it is worth. Wikipedia should mirror the internet and have raised the subject of its deletion on wikipedia email. A google search on Frosties Kid raises over 40,000 links [Frosties Kid search] I cannot really see how a deletion is appropriate. The article does need sourcing. but a delete is inappropriate Mike33 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — Little or no notability, virtually no sources to speak of, and is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have two votes:
Merge if more proof of a meme/urban myth can be shown, right now, it can't be. Otherwise...
Delete unless he does make the 2008 team, right now, there's a serious lack of notability since anyone off the street can be in a commercial (hell, I've done an anti drug commercial before, and I don't consider myself notable). That, and the sources aren't reliable. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment calm down. It is not a biography. Sven Ruygrok just happens to be the internet meme. Does wikipedia echo internet memes, yes. Does Wikipidea become part of a meme? no way. The article has stood for the last year. It does need clean up. WP:BLP warriors - prove how it worked last week and falls from grace this week? Mike33 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That is so uncool in Afd. please save remarks like that to my talk page. unjustified. Mike33 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If you'd like more evidence of how widespread this meme is, check out the article "Why the Frosties ad is the worst of all time" by Alistair Foster in the Evening Standard on August 14th, 2006. It's an article just about the commercial and the reactions its inspired. It's not All Your Base, but it has widespread coverage including coverage in mainstream sources. Chris Croy 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Frosties. One newspaper article and Snopes does not satisfy WP:BIO. Also smacks of spam by the cerieal company to gain more free publicity. Someone might consider reviving WP:MEME with criteria which would consider the significance of memes. Edison 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain, with a sidenote that I'd support a merge. He appears to be the equivalent of Mikey over here in the United States, but research turns up nothing much. Perhaps a local over there can turn up something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the merge idea was kicked around last fall. without canvassing I can find some of the editors who opposed a merger. During the WP:BLP storm I asked for clarification about this article. The feedback I received is that it is meme. If we are going to start deleting all meme then surely we have lost sense of those guidelines. The article has gone through ad infinitum changes. As it stands today I think it has credibility. Mike33 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am voting keep based on the fact that Little Mikey thrives and because I don't really think people should just keep taking stabs at the apple. The article is marginal, but somewhat encyclopedic. If Lucky Vanous had an article I would surely vote to keep. I am not sure where the notability hurdle is on human spokespersons, but I support as an interesting topic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
not sure if I understood all the text. red links certainly dont help your argument. Little Mikey may well be a good example (its been a featured page), however, The Frosties Kid, will never get to be a featured page. It has its own validity, but certainly not to the extent of Little Mikey. Mike33 23:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • On a lighter note my home page is google and use the search "frosties kid wikipedia" to edit. what am i gonna do if it gets deleted? its gonna sugest I recreate the article! Mike33 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's deleted per concensus, I'd suggest going to Deletion Review. Recreating the article post deletion is a sure-fire way to see it deleted as per WP:CSD#G4. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It was intended as an offside. I have no wish to recreate the article if it passes through Afd. Lighter note is just a wikilove. Mike33 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
...my sense of humor was not working at that moment. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In this Afd and the last, my arguments have always been based on the Idealist idea the the article is about the advert and the interest it created (see Frosties kid talk "what is this article about"). During my editing of the article it has remained purely about the advert and has never been a biography. Search strings like "frosties actor" are a little weasle, and certainly dont help to form consensus. Further to that, AfD is not a vote. It is about consensus. The article was raised because tags were removed, and a consensus decision in Afd is often a great way of resolving matters. As for WP:NOTABLE, that is a guideline. I beleive it passes notabilty guidelines. In terms of validity, The simple question we should ask is "does this article make wikipedia good or bad by its inclusion?" Mike33 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Mike33. Lugnuts 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Dhartung. The Parsnip! 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, redirect to Frosties. Any article that's only known as "The Frosties Kid" seems a little silly to me. Include the rumours and info on any ad campaigns in the Frosties article. It's not important enough to have it's own article. Barbara Osgood 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there is no Frosties it is a redirect to Frosted Flakes and would simply create a new edit war. I have archived Talk:Frosted_Flakes about the frosties kid long predating an article. The advert was never aired outside the UK and Eire. Mike33 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... then redirect to Frosted Flakes. Comment if it's redirected from Frosties, why does the article begin Frosties (or Frosted Flakes in North America) If the Frosties is noted first prominently in the article, surely the disambig page should link to "Frosties", with "Frosted Flakes" being a redirect? Barbara Osgood 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A merge to Frosted Flakes would create more mess (see Frosted Flakes archive. A redirect? Either you haven't made your self clear, but this AfD has never been about a redirect. My answer to you is that a merge with a North-American page is not an option. Disambiguation pages should list the most notable instances with preference over others. Frosties in the US is more notable as a cool-ade than frosties as a kellogg brand. You seem too have headed very far off topic. Mike33 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator says "sources do not show notability of the subject and arent reliable sources". Has been featured in articles by the Sun (UK's best selling paper) and the Daily Mail/Evening Standard/ Metro (all part of the same group but separate newspapers - 1 national, 1 London-based, 1 regional I guess). Also mentioned by Scott Mills on BBC Radio 1 (national radio) ([1])Very well-known in the UK, if not in the US. '"Frosties kid"' gives 9000+ hits on Google. 'Frosties suicide' gives 27000+ hits on Google. Paulbrock 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment not sure where you get the 9000 figure from on google, my simple google search tallies 40,500 [Google Search using "frosties kid"] Google also directs me to try related searches (Searches related to: frosties kidfrosties advert frosties kid suicide frosties frosties kid dead frosties kid myspace frosties kid death kellogs) I haven't yet needed to use any of those wonderful search suggestions, and would not think it very wise to! Mike33 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify, the 9000+ search was [2] Paulbrock 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because of potential WP:BLP problems. Doesn't sound like this guy wants a wikipedia entry (yeah, I know it's not under his name). Capmango 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The BLP problems would pose a cleanup. Aside from that, unless the party in question comes out and says "please remove it", we can't really make those assumptions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to WP:BLP issues and lack of reliable sources. RFerreira 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Closing Comment - I just seem to be repeating the same arguments.
(1) This was raised as tag dispute and a further reason was notability. Notability is not a criteria in Afd but very helpful - in various googles it hits over far over the 1 or two articles suggested. (passim 40,000, 9,000plus, 27,500 etc)
(2) "The Frosties Kid" might well be a living person, but the article is about the advert, its reception as a meme and media reaction to the meme. In terms of WP:BLP one could use the same rule to delete Essjay controversy and you would find a very big no way. A bee helps to create a new flower but the bee does not become the flower.
(3) Mergers have been considered before. Frosted Flakes is largely a US article and The Frosties Kid didn't sit on the page for very long and went through an edit war.
(4) A delete is only acceptable if the article makes Wikipedia bad. If editors consider this article makes wikipedia bad then please start removing all cruft from Wikipedia, some of the editors commenting have contributed to articles that are very Cruft.
(5) None of the original editors seem interested in the article, but it has been policed successfully for the last 11 months. It is a constantly vandalised article, but this certainly dosen't make it bad.

Mike33 07:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge with Frosties ...it's no longer current but is relevant and it is referenced ...? the fact that is is regularly vandalized would seem to say it is notable ?

lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Vandalism does not make the subject of an article notable... The Parsnip! 15:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The most Notable articles on Wikipedia are also the one that are either Locked to stop vandals or are the most vandalised it shows that it is a "Well Known" subject and people are interested in it (regardless of notability) "The Frosties Kid" is Notable since it has been referenced in several UK newspapers (Note this is more that the article on Slashdot has!) lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources, and we're not here to regurgetate tittle-tattle and rumours.--Sandy Donald 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Poorly written article, but notability sufficiently established even if the subject seems trivial to me. Obviously not a biography, so WP:BLP doesn't come into it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 09:36, 24 June 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.