Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch!!

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. I should remind that establishing where the consensus lies is not the result of a count of keep, merge and delete comments but that those comments are saying in relation to valid argument for keep or delete. This article has a long and complex history in the AfD sector and even what appears to be an unclosed deletion review - all of which have been read by me and considered in this closure. I have not been asked to SALT the article and its variations but that may be required if total closure is to be achieved. There are of course two possibilities for reaching that total closure and so in due course depending upon the outcome - if asked I will perform that function.--VS ^talk 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Juggernaut Bitch!!

The Juggernaut Bitch!! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Although this article has existed for over a year and a half, it isn't even close to meeting Wikipedia quality standards. The overwhelming majority of the article consists of plot summary, original research, speculation, or some combination of the above. The fundamental problem is that there is only one reliable secondary source — this MTV article. Furthermore, the "Juggernaut Bitch" film is not the subject of that MTV article; rather, it is mentioned in passing, as a point of trivia. Anything worthwhile could easily be included in a brief paragraph in the article for X-Men: The Last Stand, referencing the MTV article to discuss the tagline. This article in itself simply fails basic Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as per good deletion rationale. No non-trivial secondary sources to show how this is notable or important. Lankiveil (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete WP:BOLLOCKS and fancruft. Any material worth saving could be included in the pages for the Juggernaut (comics) or X-Men: The Last Stand. However, there doesn't seem to be anything worth putting anywhere else. Doc Strange (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Very reluctant Merge. While I personally stand by the article's existance per se (due to the video's status as an internet phenomenon), I concede with the reasoning. Hopefully, it will find an expanded place on the primary articles (Juggernaut (comics)/X-Men: The Last Stand). fhb3 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge as above. The topic to date only has these three vectors of reference (phenomenon, original character, movie). Nahum Reduta (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as per the previous AfD discussions; the inclusion in the movie sealed the deal and ended discussions as to whether it was "notable" --which often, sadly, has nothing more to do with whether a subjective editor "has heard of it or not" or "thinks its silly"; sorry, that's not the point. Also, waiting until 2008 to do another one of these is lame. --Bobak (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Notability" is not the primary criterion on whether an article should be kept or deleted. Neither is the existence of previous AFD discussions. The fundamental problem is the lack of non-trivial, reliable third-party sources. *** Crotalus *** 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This article seems like it could help. Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Yeah, it definitely doesn't fail notability, and I'm pretty sure we can improve the article a bit.Master Bigode (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you set a time frame for this? I've seen countless AFD discussions where "keep and cleanup" was the result, and then in 6 months or a year the article was still no good. Right now, the article contains exactly one fact cited to a reliable, secondary source: namely, that the infamous "bitch" line in X-Men 3 was inspired by this video. Someone else cited an article saying that Youtube had taken down the video, so that's a second fact. A brief, factual plot summary that is primary-sourced to the original video itself would also be valid, but not if it involves interpretations of the video (which would be original research). Even taking all this together, I'm not at all sure there is enough for a good article to ever be written on this subject. *** Crotalus *** 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment A timeframe isn't required for improvement. Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. Rray (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment 18 months is plenty long enough. This article was restored from deletion in June 2006. Here is how it has changed since then.[1] Plenty of time has been allowed to improve this article in line with policies. WP:DEADLINE cuts both ways. There is no deadline for the inclusion of articles either. Hiding T 12:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 'It definitely doesn't fail notability'? Could you please provide evidence of that notability then, in the form of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources? Because at the moment, the article doesn't have them. Terraxos (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A cleanup tag might be appropriate here, but deletion wouldn't. AfD isn't a tool to be used to force article cleanup. More sources can be added at any point in the future. Rray (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely zero notability, flatly fails WP:RS. I wouldn't even support a merge - there's no content worth keeping here. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete an Non notable film. Marlith ^T/C 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Closing admin, count me as delete or merge depending on consensus. I base my opinion on the two previous afd's which I have added a listing to, as well as the first deletion review and the concerns of the nom and others within this debate. This may have been of note a couple of years ago, to the extent a [deletion review] which was never closed but appears to have justified restoring the content per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 June) and included stopping the third afd. Process seems to have gone awry here, and I do not think that should get in the way of the strong consensus already seen in previous debates. Hiding T 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Very popular meme. Survived previous deletion attempts and deletion review. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It survived one deletion debate, failed the second, failed the first deletion review and then got caught in a process loop in the second deletion review and third afd from which it is now emerging. Hiding T 14:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Noted, however how can this article not be notable if it was used in an X-Men movie?[2] Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. For all of the myriad of reasons cited above. Pellucid (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Really quite un-notable.--Him and a dog 19:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Question How does one recategorize this page from Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) to Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)? I don't see category tags anywhere in it. Would it be OK to just add the Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts) category at the bottom of the page? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (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.