Talk:Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
A fact from Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 9, 2007. |
 |
Contents |
[edit] External links
Why do we have a list of parodies and responses? I don't see them adding any actual factual or informative value to the article. --Wafulz 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- They're mentioned in the article. Daniel Case 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- They don't strike me as particularly relevant or important to the video (the parodies in particular). Pretty much every popular YouTube video gets a response and/or parody. --Wafulz 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The video
It's been deleted. 24.83.3.54 03:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops. I was trying to post a the end and accidentaly posted in the middle. 24.83.3.54 03:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, I'm thinking more of converting them into references now, as soon as the article gets kept (I cannot believe someone actually nominated it for deletion). Daniel Case 01:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Merge Jodi Behan
It appears that Ms Behan has not done anything of note outside this video, therefore I suggest the info is merged into this article.
Note that *this* article is up for AfD- it probably won't be deleted, but that's beside the point. If this video isn't notable, then neither is Behan. Fourohfour 16:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's only been four months or so since the video. Was she supposed to get an Academy Award since then? She's an aspiring actress who did something notable; she should get time to distinguish herself separately before we go merging the articles. Daniel Case 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- We can unmerge later, it is not that hard. Support. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, but why set oneself up for that when the possibility still exists that she may yet acquire notability independently of this video? Daniel Case 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Simple; Wikipedia has notability guidelines for good reason, and isn't in the business of crystal ballgazing. We don't work on the basis that something *might* happen in the future unless there's strong evidence to support this.
- Put another way, the justification you give could be used for the inclusion of countless articles on presently non-notable people- and I'm sure it would be.
- So, judging on present evidence, Behan's notability (by WP standards) is related entirely to one thing- and according to the rules that means her info should go in *that* article. Fourohfour 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are misapplying WP:CRYSTAL. That refers to the articles we've all seen on NP patrol that say things like "He doesn't have a record contract yet, but he's gonna be a big star". Ms. Behan has already starred in a notable Internet viral video in the hopes of launching an acting career on top of several student films she's been in (which I didn't list in the article, and wouldn't, because I didn't know what they were and they're probably not notable anyway). I would argue that four months since said video is not a sufficient amount of time to redirectify the article on the grounds that she has not acquired notability outside of the wig-out video. A year, yes. Daniel Case 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking you are correct about CRYSTAL, but you're still basically saying "give her a chance, she might become famous enough to warrant her own article". That's only a minor difference. It also implies that you accept that she isn't famous enough to justify this yet.
- The possibility exists that she might become famous. The possibility also exists that I might turn into a blueberry after chewing magic gum.
- There is an official guideline for people only notable for one event. Fourohfour 09:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. I still think we're being a little hasty compared to our other articles on other people notable only for similar one-off Internet fame (see Vincent Ferrari; someone who probably won't make it into to the public eye again) and I would be more amenable to this were it not happening contemporaneously with the second, extremely superfluous, deletion nom for this article.
However, I am amenable to converting the Behan article into a redirect until such time as she has secured notability on her own. It's much easier to resurrect into a full article that way (I mean, merging means we'd have to delete it, then recreate it and explain to some admin why we're recreating a deleted article. I just don't think it's worth that level of hassle). Daniel Case 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are misapplying WP:CRYSTAL. That refers to the articles we've all seen on NP patrol that say things like "He doesn't have a record contract yet, but he's gonna be a big star". Ms. Behan has already starred in a notable Internet viral video in the hopes of launching an acting career on top of several student films she's been in (which I didn't list in the article, and wouldn't, because I didn't know what they were and they're probably not notable anyway). I would argue that four months since said video is not a sufficient amount of time to redirectify the article on the grounds that she has not acquired notability outside of the wig-out video. A year, yes. Daniel Case 22:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Support - This article is not notable enought to stand alone. --Bryson 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not a merge, a redirect
Redirectifying the Behan article would actually be a better way to solve this issue ... there is very little information in that article that would be relevant if merged into this one (What does her life have to do with the video?). If she were to achieve notability independent of this (sitcom starring role, or something like that), it would be easier to resurrect the existing text.
If there is no objection to this, I'll do it in a few days. Daniel Case 22:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC) :Oppose - still discussing if to merge to Jodi Behan. --Bryson 15:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought the article on Behan is very weak, a R/D is a good idea.--Bryson 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really see much discussion of that. I'd like to hear why a merge is better than a redirect. Daniel Case 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Since no one else opposed and I changed my mind I went a head and redirected the Behan article.--Bryson 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
