Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rickroll (2nd nomination)

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 srsly keptz. Send your rickrolls

H₂O) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Rickroll

)

Srsly guyz. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, notable phenomenon. —Random832 (contribs) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Random, and it needs a rewrite --₪Ryan Taylor₪^talk 02:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. yep notable, and if YouTube UK acknowledges it even on April Fools Day... ViperSnake151 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this diff. —
BradV 02:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Winner 68.40.58.255 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You really can't expect people to be serious on a nom like this... --₪Ryan Taylor₪^talk 02:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can never give this article up, we can never let this article down. We cannot run around and desert it. We cannot make it cry, and we cannot say goodbye. STRONG KEEP ~ Riana ⁂ 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And most of all, we can never tell a lie and hurt it. szyslak (t) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this guy is just sour that he's been rickrolled already and it's barely even April Fool's Day yet. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into "Never Gonna Give You Up" Wikipedian06 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You don't give a reason. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've actually been a bit surprised that it's been a redirect to the song's article for as long as it has. Clearly notable with lots of coverage. Maxa megalon 2000 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in plenty of
WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - a rare example of an internet meme that's actually achieved mainstream notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York Times and Guardian references are good enough for me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cool Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt has actually reached mainstream, even youtube is rickrolling every one as a April fools joke --Phiren (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep What the fuck is this shit? Despite the fact that there have been numerous mainstream news articles about this, YouTube has just decided to use this as an April Fool's Joke, rickrolling everyone who clicks on a featured video. Xizer (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to take April Fools' jokes too seriously. —

BradV 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong keep This Internet phenomenon has been verified by Le Monde, the Times of London, the New York Times, The Guardian, and even The Economist. szyslak (t) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable phenomenon, to the point that a major website (YouTube) made it the subject of its April Fool's prank (if it's not notable, who's supposed to get the joke?) Ubernostrum (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This nomination must be an April fool's joke considering how well documented this phenomenon is in secondary sources. Clearly passes notability and verifiability guidelines. —siro χ o 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. Nakon 05:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article irrefutably satisfies
WP:N at this point in time. --MaTrIx (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. --Running 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep, srsly. This has gone through AfD before. It was notable then, it's notable now. Notability is not temporary. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back into Never Gonna Give You Up. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep Ever Enough said. Grue 06:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never gonna give it up. Luigi30 (Taλk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. YouTube endorsed it. Also strong support in Urban dictionary. Dandv (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a friend just used the word, I had to look it up. Glad the article wasn't deleted. 48v (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you kidding me? This nomination must be a joke. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion suggestion was an April Fools joke (I hope). --Viper007Bond (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never gonna say goodbye and desert you Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never gonna make you cry Paradoxsociety (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the phenomenon cited in 3 different places in the past few days, came here to look it up, found it. Keep it please :-) Sciamanna (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you. Z00r (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many articles about it, including in the New York Times, and featured in April Fool's pranks by both YouTube and LiveJournal. OldestManOnMySpace (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this is a serious nomination after all, I'd go with keep. Having been very prominently referenced by YouTube, IsoHunt, LiveJournal, and being central to the Project Chanology movement, I don't see any lack of notability. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was actually serious, but I, as the closing admin, didn't understand that. It has now been reopened for discussion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was a serious nomination? Wow ... Considering alone yesterday's YouTube April Fools when everyone who clicked on a featured video was Rickrolled, I think this pole-vaults over our notability requirements... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, I don't see "srsly guys" being a good rationale for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already enough reliable secondary sources (New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, Washington Post) in the article defining and analyzing the phenomenon. While the subsection on April Fool's Day, 2008 currently relies on primary sources, that will surely be remedied within a week (such as this Chicago Tribune column that even links to wikipedia's
Rickroll article!). Abecedare (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'm confused. I'm sure this has been listed for deletion each day this week. Is someone just moving the nom from day to day? Why is it posted under 2nd April 2008 when it was put up on April 1st. Doesn't that effect the "rules" about timelines and how long items are meant to be up for discussion? By the way my "vote" is Keep no matter how silly I may personally feel the thing is it does seem to have ended up as notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was an April Fool's joke, and closed it appropriately; however, the nominator is serious, so I reopened it and added it to a new day for more consensus. And remember, AFD isn't a vote. ;) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 10:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it isn't a vote that was why I put it in quotation marks. I just can't think of a better word for it. Would you prefer I use the word opinion next time? Not trying to be snarky just want to make sure I get it right from now on. BTW I thought it was a joke article when I first saw it too. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I was just kidding. People can use that word as long as they remember the fundamental concept of the XFD processes (and usually, we use !vote to show what we mean). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable internet phenomenon. ~ Ameliorate _{T @ 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]}

Keep Clearly notable, plenty of sources(both here and in the article). Also, i don't see any good points for deletion here, even the nominator can't seem to think of one.--Kip Kip 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely common internet phenomenon. Has been featured on the NYT and BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.12.94 (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Brainer: Keep Why do people keep trying to delete this article? It's a source of curiosity for most people aware of its presence which comprises a likely vast majority of media savvy people.. 74.77.241.148 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As weird as it sounds, not everyone on Wikipedia is media-savvy (no offense intended to the nominator) and understands just how widespread and covered this is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I do not see how this article would need to be deleted. The content is notable and verifiable. Also, you did not give out a reason for this nomination. Mythdon (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was rickrolled five times yesterday (dang, almost got to
chatter) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per extreme notability. I'm thinking we might have to Snowball this nomination.--Piemanmoo (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I'm detecting some

snow in this sector. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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.