Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi!

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 - keep socks were noted, also some keeps were on the grounds "what's wrong" and the delete advocates managed to "damage" some of these "keeps".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi!

Kiwi! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep Come on, keep it. I don't even see the reason for deleting it. Wikipedia is a free conglormate of ideas, information about anything. And this is something.

An (admittedly cute) animation on YouTube. Best claim to notability is that a bunch of people on Fark and Digg liked it. Disputed prod. —Cryptic 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Kiwi isn't just cute. It has a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.116.218 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Kiwi is an excellent animation with a large fan base. There should be a wiki page for it if people want to know more about it. Definetly keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.116.218 (talk • contribs)

• Comment User's only edit. —EdGl 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I loved 'Kiwi!', and I think that on the off-chance that someone hears about it and wants to know about it, there should be a Wikipedia article that will introduce them to it. Please don't delete it. Perhaps someone could make the 'Kiwi!' article more acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbythebeach (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as no assertion of notability. Possibly redirect to Kiwi if appropriate(???). —EdGl 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wide enough audience for this, I don't believe that it needs deletion. -- Librarianofages 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you verify that? Can you edit this article so that it asserts notability? Then maybe I will rethink my vote. But as of now, you haven't convinced me or probably anyone else that it does not warrant deletion. —EdGl 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Simply look at the audience on Youtube, perhaps all we need to do is say " as of dd/mm/yyyy Kiwi! had xxx,xxx,xxx views on Youtube alone." Would that be ok with you then? -- Librarianofages 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment No. Needs reliable sources. Random youtube viewers are not reliable sources. ColourBurst 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'll agree that YouTube as a primary source should be questioned. In response to that, I've added the director's website as an external link -- it also hosts the video (and at much higher quality than YouTube, I might add). However, using YouTube viewership as a gauge of notability should be fair play. If 2 million views is not some indication of notability, then I don't know what is. Chicago god 08:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Two million views is an indication of popularity, not notability. There are many temporarily popular things that are not notable in any way. This is a perfect example, along with scads of other Internet fads. In a month, no one will know nor care about this thing. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. It is notable because it is popular. Your comment about fads lacks credibility: Internet_fad Chicago god 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are reliable sources verifying this not just a Youtube viewer count. Capitalistroadster 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster Missvain 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wonderfully cute and tragic, and I'm fairly confident that one day it will have sources. However, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and we can't do anything without verification, so for now it can't have an article. --Wafulz 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources to write an article from. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Brian | (Talk) 05:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote; you must give a reason for why this article should be kept. —EdGl 05:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't have to make a recommendation on every vote. Brian | (Talk) 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As EdGl rightly said, this is not a vote. With no rationale, and more importantly no cited sources, your bare opinion will not count against the assertions that it is impossible to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article, using non-trivial independent sources, on this subject. Your best, and only, arguments are sources, sources, sources. Uncle G 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course the debate is not a vote (that’s why VDF was renamed). I should have said on my “recommendation” however I did not. On AFD you do not have to make a detailed recommendation all the time. Brian | (Talk) 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm just saying, your vote has no weight if you can't tell us your reasoning. —EdGl 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as webcontent that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 07:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure if I can vote since I created the article. In defense of the article: 2 million + views on YouTube. If that's not notable, then words have no meaning. Chicago god 07:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added a reliable source -- to wit: the director's website (which also hosts the video) has been added as an external link in the article. Chicago god 08:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment you can "vote" all you want, but this isn't a vote. We're looking for arguments and discussion and (we hope) some form of concensus. And in this particular case, we're looking for multiple, independent, reliable sources. The directors website is hardly independent, and as a directly interested party, its reliability may be questionable as well. Xtifr _tälk 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I have removed speedy delete tag. There is an assertion of notability and a discussion to be had here. For now, I think we still need reliable third party sources. As the director is not a third party but the creator, his website doesn't count. Chicago god might want to copy it across to his talk page until there are sources such as newspaper articles or reviews online that verify its importance. For now, Google News has nothing on it and Google News Archive has lonelygirl but nothing on this. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 'Qubit Field Theory' has no entries in Google News or Google News Archive either, but Jimbo and I both think it's worthy of an article... and it is. Chicago god 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That is irrelevant. We are discussing this article. Your only arguments are to cite sources. So please cite them. Uncle G 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable independent sources are provided. Wikipedia is not a web directory! Xtifr _tälk 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what kind of source information you're looking for. The source stating that it's a film? That it's animated? That it's digital? That's it's under 3 minutes? That it has a plot? That the plot is as described in the article? That it has a director? Chicago god 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment ... that it's notable. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and reiterate Keep There are 500+ hits for 'Dony Permedi Kiwi!' on Google, many of which are reliable, independent sources. Chicago god 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Mind pointing one out? All I see are blogs and forum posts, though I stopped looking after the first fifty hits. —Cryptic 12:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to assert notability. Having it watched by 2M+ people is not notability. Winning an oscar would. scope_creep 15:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT Chicago god has created two keeps. As the creator of this article, these are ineligible. scope_creep 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - This video must be documented by indepedent sources, however I do know it is very popular on youtube. Valoem ^talk 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I watched the video, and it's nice, but it's not really a notable Internet meme. The "external links" to the thousands of comments fail to change my mind on this. 129.98.212.69 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nice little animation, I have to say. Sadly it's not notable as an Internet meme, but if it becomes one we can take it to WP:DRV. Notability would count as a newspaper/magazine article about the item, or a TV report etc. It hasn't reached those standards, yet. --SunStar Net 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The article does not assert it's notability. Please review WP:V for a better definition. Typically, sir, blogs, forums, and internet sites are not taken as professional external sources. TV Shows, newspapers, magazines, and the like are. To other users, voting without a reason based on a WP:POLICY is usually not even counted by the closing admin, so you are quite frankly wasting your time doing that. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I really like this film, but there's no evidence that it's notable. --Hyperbole 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unimpressed notability-wise. Moreschi 21:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The only argument I've heard so far for keeping this article is that it has 2 million hits on YouTube. Big woop. There are many videos on YouTube that have way more hits, and they don't have articles. Why? Because, as said over and over again on here, no verifiable, independent, reliable sourses to back them up. A buttload of hits just means YouTube is popular! My vote still stands as "delete". —EdGl 00:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are fewer than 250 videos on YouTube that have more views than "Kiwi!" does. I guess that's what you mean by many. Of those many, most are unworthy of an article for the reasons you state. This film, however, is deserving an article. Chicago god 03:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, why is this deserving of an article? Here's a tip, take a look at Free Hugs Campaign, an article about YouTube video that actually is notable. See how many assertions of notablity, and how many sources cited? Compare that article to Kiwi!. —EdGl 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll gladly compare. Thirteen days after Free Hugs Campaign became an article, it still had exactly one source cited (YouTube). One source after nearly two weeks. Kiwi! has 6 sources in 2 days. Chicago god 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.isfat.com/happyjunk/kiwi.php is the only real source (reference) I see in the Kiwi! article. The other links just show where the video is and how many reviews it had. I count eight good ones in the Free Hugs Campaign article, and most of them are news articles. Hey, maybe you can find a few news articles for Kiwi!. —EdGl 04:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That reference, in fact, mentions that the director may submit the film to some festivals. The news articles will practically write themselves at that point. Chicago god 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the article will have sources in the future means that the article doesn't have sources now, and because WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it can be deleted and restored later when it does get the sources. ColourBurst 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Saying that the article will have sources in the future means that the article doesn't have sources now" is both a falsehood and a deviation of logic. The article does, in fact, have sources. Chicago god 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant to say that although Kiwi! might have "good souces" in the future (independent, reliable, verifyable...), this article does not have any now and is not notable at this point. Like I said before, I only see one "good source". The rest are "fluff". Get a couple of news articles in there!!! I suggest copy/pasting this article to a user subpage, wait for some news articles, and recreate the article in due time. But this may not happen for a long time, if ever. —EdGl 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment – 5 minutes ago this clip featured on a mainstream New Zealand TV show Campbell Live this shortly now can be classed as WP:Notable Brian | (Talk) 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I back the above comment up as I also watched it. Background information was given before the video was played. The video was played with permission from the copyright holder so it wasn't just played off YouTube. Nzgabriel 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Right now there aren't any valid third party sources mentioned so it doesn't establish notability. However, to people interested in keeping the article... I remember reading about this somewhere and it wasn't on YouTube, but I have no idea where I read this. This does mean that there is a third party source out there if someone looks hard enough. --The Way 09:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep "kiwi" "Dony Permedi" give 719 google hits at the moment, and it seems as notable as Lonelygirl15 cyclosarin 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a good comparison considering how many independent references Lonelygirl has (including several mentions from prominent news sources, the New York Times, and Associated Press). --Wafulz 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually a google search of kiwi Dony Permedi now seems to give over 12,000 hits, though I see your point and realise that google isn't everything. cyclosarin 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 22,000 google hits today. That's 10,000 more than yesterday. Chicago god 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Quality animation, well written article. What's not to like? --Billpg 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the article isn't written well it all. It also contains original research like "There are many parallels that can be found between the film's kiwi and the human condition." The existence of independent sources would help quite a bit. --Wafulz 20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "Actually the article isn't written well it all." That's your opinion. The presence of one line at the end can be fixed by trimming that line. --Billpg 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No offense to you or the article contributor(s), but this article really is poorly written. I would love to go into detail, but it would take up too much space, and this is an inappropriate place to discuss it as well. If you're still inconvinced, would you like me to spell it all out for you on this talk page? (or the article's talk page?) —EdGl 01:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Edit: May I add that a "quality animation" and a "well-written article" are not reasons to keep an article? —EdGl 01:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • "Well written" and "Quality" are matters of opinion. I happen to like both the film and the WP article on it. You are at liberty to disagree. --Billpg 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • EdGl : You're right, this is not the place to discuss the quality of the writing. The article may need improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Instead of spelling out the problems that you have with the writing, be bold and edit the article (or tag the article appropriately). Chicago god 08:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying it's a reason to delete! I'm saying that just because (Billpg thinks that) the article is well written doesn't mean that the article should be kept! Sorry for all the exclamation points, but I want to make sure you're reading my posts the way I mean them to say. As an aside, though, I would improve the diction, but since the consensus seems to be "delete", then I'm not going to waste my time. But if it were the other way around, I'd help it out. Or if doing so would improve its notability. —EdGl 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete just complete nonsense that doesn't belong here. Anomo 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "complete nonsense"? This coming from the person who nominated "The Diarrhea Song" as a featured article two weeks ago. Please. Chicago god 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why must everyone wikistalk me? Anomo 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment To summarize thus far: references have been added (secondary source), the video has been run on a primetime television show (notability), it has more than 3 million views on YouTube (notability), has gone from 400 google hits to 24,000 in about 4 days (does not exist in a vaccuum), and has been edited to remove the single line of original research (no original research). Chicago god 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cuteness is not inherently notable. WMMartin 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - very nice little cartoon, but not yet notable enough, although I suspect that may change if this starts playing festivals. TheRealFennShysa 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if there is room in Wikipedia for useless articles about World of Warcrap cities and obscure characters from the Star Wars universe, there is room for this. KEEP IT!!! Don't let the lame nazi censors delete it. Windows214218:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Treat this article as a separate issue, please. And stop the name-calling. Can you give any reasons for your keep vote other than "there are articles on here that are even worse"? —EdGl 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. YouTube is notable. And this ranked #1 all-time in important categories. I suspect that YouTube and its succesors are becoming a valid medium for publishing of animation. If this had been made 50 years ago it would have been a short subject at the movies, I guess, and if had won the Oscar for best short subject it'd be notable. So this is sort of the 21st-century equivilant, in a way, I suppose. Herostratus 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying keep the article because YouTube is notable, and that being "#1 all-time" (proof please?) is equivalent to winning an Oscar? —EdGl 03:16, 21 November 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.