Talk:What What (In the Butt)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on April 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
[edit] Keep It
It is pretty famous. I say keep it.
The video is famous enough to be on Wikipedia, but I know the article sounds a little too promotional right now. I'd like to make it sound more encyclopedic. Can you help me out or give me some time to fix this up?
- It's not the "promotional" aspect which is likely to be a problem, but the fact that it is largely unsourced, and the claim to notability is not well established. Yes, it is a popular viral video - but so are most viral internet videos, so that in itself is not notable. If there is sufficient (third-party) media coverage, it might be worth keeping. Please provide some references to this end, and this will certainly increase the article's chances of survival. If none are provided, or if none exist, then it may not be suitable for a Wikipedia article. (Have a brief look over What Wikipedia is not, if you haven't already). Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The above is not an argument, it is ideology. The fact is that this song/video is popular and well known (as is admitted by the ideologue) and deserves inclusion. Some people simply use these tactics as an excuse to delete content they don't like. They essentially try to extent their personal standards of relevance to others. This page is informative and you know it. It's the very kind of thing Wikipedia should include. People see videos like this and want information. Wikipedia is where many people turn for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.76.106 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- It may be ideology, but it is the ideology of Wikipedia as a whole. It is not enough to be informative and factual, although these are certainly necessary as well. Why does this topic "deserve inclusion"? What is the argument to support this statement? Where are the external sources that support this claim? If there are reasonable answers to these questions, then there should be no problem with the article remaining. If there are no reasonable answers, then I do not see why it should be so surprising that the article will be removed. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 15:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Peruvianllama, You said: "If there is sufficient (third-party) media coverage, it might be worth keeping." What more media coverage do you need than MSNBC, VH1's Web Junk, VH1's Best Week Ever, Savage Love, Los Angeles' #1 morning show (1.6 million listeners every morning), Adam Curry, Video Static, Technorati, and hundreds of popular blogs? That's a ridiculous amount of third party media coverage. If I put links to these articles would that be enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatner1 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Links to the articles is exactly what I was looking for. Because Wikipedia is run by consensus, I cannot "guarantee" that the article will remain or be removed, pe se. However providing reasonable sources is the first step towards bringing an article up to Wikipedia's standards. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, just happened to stop by this article and noticed the discussion. Sorry if my wiki skills are sub-par! I just wanted to throw in my 3-cents that as an academic researcher who studies viral media such as this video, I would LOVE to see articles on nearly all viral videos. (My colleagues and I have discussed this numerous times.) Each viral video can be seen as a small cultural event that speaks volumes about the current state of the populace that enjoys them. They each represent "words" in a new, more complex cultural language that is being created (and spoken) on the fly, evolving linguistically faster than any prior. Just imagine 50 years from now when we look back to this period trying to figure out how this all began: Wikipedia could be a TREMENDOUS resource on this subject which others may have ignored.
LASTLY: why speedy deletion? I can see how speedy deletion is a good thing for certain silly articles and wiki-graffiti, but in this case I don't understand why the author can't be allowed to develop this article with some help from the community. Where's the fire, in other words?
-Blake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.105.207 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
SERSeanCrane says: "The article is spammish/nn." I'm guessing "nn" stands for "not noteworthy" -- The video is noteworthy enough to be mentioned on MSNBC, VH1's Web Junk, VH1's Best Week Ever, Savage Love, Los Angeles' #1 morning show (1.6 million listeners every morning), Adam Curry, Video Static, Technorati, many podcasts, and hundreds of popular blogs. Seems noteworthy to me.
And if the article seems "spammish" to you, please tell me how to make it less so. I genuinely want this article to stay up in the name of pop culture, art, memetics, the viral revolution, gay rights, and education -- not publicity. I know the name of the video seems juvenile in a way, but the video itself is a well-crafted piece of legitimate and popular art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatner1 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Shatner1, please sign your posts in the future! It makes conversations much easier to follow. Thanks. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Very sorry, I'm new at this. -- Shatner1 Shatner1 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem at all, just making sure you got the message! :) --PeruvianLlama(spit) 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This page was vandalized slightly. I wasn't sure how to revert back the changes, so I just edited them out. Shatner1 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] If you want to edit it, don't revert.
The previous version was rubbish. We don't need a plot summary for a five minute music video that's longer than that of some Doctor Who episode articles (and they are some of the best episode articles there are). We don't need original research on how the starfish is an anus. We don't need a controversy section - for fucks sake, it's about a gay black guy. That's an obvious hate magnet. The history section is unneeded, and the media quotes and external links are done badly, making it effectively unsourced. If you want to edit and expand, start from scratch, instead of using a shitty version. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on What What (In the Butt): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sceptre: When did I personally attack you? I haven't said anything negative about you, only that fact that your actions seem extremely drastic and unnecessary. If anything, you've done more in terms of "attacking" when you said the article was "a crock of shit" (04:09, 29 April 2007 Sceptre (Talk | contribs) m (183 bytes) This whole article is a crock of shit...) and referred to the article as a "shitty version" (see above comment). I looked at your page and it seems that people have had trouble with you in the past. And since when does "gay black man" equal "controversy"? Please try to be more reasonable, understanding, and mature (and this is not a personal attack).
Calling me a vandal is a personal attack, and we're perfectly entitled to comment on content, but not on contributors. And to your messge - well, the only reason I was repulsed by the video was because, in the words of User:Elaragirl, he's "an attractive black man who's propositioning [me] anal sex". Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sceptre: Thanks for the additional information. Sorry if calling your actions "vandalism" offended you, but I looked up "wikipedia vandalism" I actually think what you did could fall under that heading. It says:
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense."
You removed ALL of the content without even trying to fix areas you had problems with. Furthermore, your actions seem to be a direct result of your opinion of the video itself, not the article. You say that you are "repulsed" by the video, making you very biased and probably not the best person to be "editing" (aka vandalizing) the article. The article was not written as a joke, it was an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I'm sorry you had such a strong reaction to the video, but please try to be a reasonable and fair human.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatner1 (talk • contribs)
- He wasn't vandalizing. I'll help rewrite the article with appropriate citations for every single claim. It won't be as long as it was, but it won't get blanked. –Pomte 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overtly propositioning someone anal sex is creepy. Doesn't matter what gender. I didn't blank it because I hate the video - look at O RLY?. It has sources, no original research, and is much more notable. We should aim it to be that. A plot summary/narrative for a music video on that length is too much. Look at I'm Not Okay (I Promise).
The second music video depicts life inside a fictional American high school in the form of a fake movie trailer. The band appears as a group of students who are repeatedly harassed by another group who are portrayed as jocks. The band members then take their revenge on the jocks and ultimately have a showdown in a hallway.
- That is all we need. A brief synopsis. Additionally, you forgot this in Wikipedia:Vandalism.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
- I also said I was following WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:A. Pomte's suggestion is pretty much what should happen. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 11:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the person that originally wrote the NARRATIVE section for this article. Firstly, to Will Sceptre: I did not write a plot summary. I wrote a factual and non-biased description of the video's narrative. If you are not familiar with the difference, you could have clicked on the wikilink for narrative! Secondly, I love Wikipedia, am excited to begin contributing my writing skills, but am dismayed to see that a rash-acting young person with an underdeveloped attitude toward alternate sexual orientations can so easily and without discussion "blank a page." Thank goodness prior versions still exist, or I would have been irate at the amount of lost work! From now on I will definitely store a copy locally, just in case. Thirdly, and lastly, I hope that my narrative does not need attribution since it is not really original work: I simply watched the video, and wrote what I saw in as neutral a tone as possible. (I suppose in this case the video itself is the attribution?) The point being that one of the interesting things about the video is that visually speaking at least, nothing all-that-gay happens... it's all in the eye of the symbol decoder. - Blake (sorry I haven't created an account yet, something's wrong with my cookies.)
- The narrative may well have passed NPOV, but it sure as heck doesn't pass the notability test. This is a minor internet meme, not War and Peace. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
