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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Girls 1 Cup

2 Girls 1 Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is a temporary internet meme that does not assert notability and will most likely not be notable in a very short period of time. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, none of the "references" as far as I saw are notable whatsever. Saying this article should be kept because it has references is ridiculous. The only credible reference site noted, MSNBC, has a tiny mention of the video in the article which has no basis for reference at all. This article seriously has no real claims for notability. Instead of just blindly saying "keep" here, please actually give a real reason. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Deletion Nomination. Okay I figured I should expand on why this meets criteria for deletion or merge. The first source mentioned, MSNBC [1], has a pretty trivial mention of the subject and probably doesn't meet "Significant coverage" of the general guideline. The article is about turning to the internet to find entertainment during the writer's strike and there is only a brief mention of 2 Girls 1 Cup. The second source [2] is some kind of online college newspaper, which does not really meet the "reliable" definition in the general guideline. Also the article again only briefly mentions the subject and the author even says "I suppose everyone is entitled to his or her 15 minutes. I just hope that in the case of the video "2 Girls, 1 Cup" the math makes it more like seven and a half.", which is my next argument that this article does not seem to meet Notability is not temporary ("A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.")

A brief rundown of the other sources mentioned: 3rd source [3] is newteevee.com, which I'm not exactly sure what that is but it seems like an online blog of new videos like youtube videos; doesn't seem like a significant source. 4th source [4] is a Smoking Gun article about the producer of the video in subject. However the indictment described in the article is more about this individual and his company in general, not specifically about this one video in question. 5th source [5] is online Radar magazine, okay, but it again is more about the arrest of a producer of this video, not really about the video itself. 6th source [6] is a very short non-notable source that is again more about Danilo Simoes Croce. 7th source [7] is another short article on a not very significant online community. 8th source [8] is simply an amateur video of Joe Rogan watching the video. This isn't a real source at all. 9th source [9] is MSNBC Clicked, an online blog for discussing online trends. There is a very brief mention of 2 Girls 1 Cup at the very end of the article. This source is definitely not a significant one. 10th source [10] is a short article about John Mayer's parody video. The source is chartattack.com, Chart Magazine's website. However, it says it's written by ChartAttack.com Staff which seams to clearly suggest it was never in the printed magazine. Short article dated from November 8, 2007. 11th source [11] is a link to John Mayer's blog which has no content on it at all. This seems to be a deadlink issue with that site but even if it did have the content, John Mayer's online blog doesn't seem notable enough anyway, it's not a news source. 12th source [12] is a 1 minute 30 second clip of 2 Girls 1 Cup being talked about on VH1's Best Week Ever. This might be the best source possibly establishing notability. However, the premise of Best Week Ever is it talks about short fads for the most part. A brief mention on this show does not establish long term notability.

The point of my explanation is that all of the sources provided in the article are pretty flimsy. If you think my analysis of the sources is bias you should take a look at the sources yourself. Not many of them meet the "Reliable" guideline because they are all online sources, mostly from blogs or gossip sites which are not well regulated for reliability of information. The few sources like the MSNBC one that are more reliable fail to meet the "Significant coverage" guideline as they either mention 2 Girls 1 Cup very briefly or are more about the indictment of Danilo Simoes Croce and U.S. legality of scat films. On top of the flimsy sources, I fail to see how this subject meets "Notability is not temporary" WP:N#TEMP. Most of the sources collaborate this fact saying it's simply a passing internet fad or meme. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By taking the time to list 12 sources and trying to refute them, you pretty much have invalidated your own point that there isn't significant coverage. These sources are more than enough to establish notability. But here is one more: On January 31, 2008, Slate magazine featured a slideshow about 2Girls1Cup reaction videos[13]. Also note that there is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines that say print sources weigh more or are to be more highly regarded than online sources. You are really grasping at straws here. — OcatecirT 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that just because there are 12 "sources" listed in the article doesn't make them significant sources. You could find brief mentions of a lot of things in online magazines and other similar sites, but that doesn't make them all notable just because of that. There's nothing specific saying print sources are more highly regarded except for the fact that most print sources require more notability to exist and thus are inherently more notable. Also, things that are bothered to be written about in printed sources tend to be more notable because of the fact that you can easily write about anything online in blogs and the like. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing "sources" with "references". It only takes a few sources to establish notability, which the slate article, vh1, and smoking gun clearly do. The rest are references listed to compile information to create a comprehensive article about the subject. — OcatecirT 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with this meme, although that doesn't necessarily assert notability. However, 2girls1cup seems to be have similarity to Goatse and Tubgirl - popular/familiar enough to warrant some sort of inclusion. That being said. the existant mention in the Shock site article is more than enough in my opinion - remove this article but leave the section in Shock site. CredoFromStart talk 07:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it being mentioned in the shock site article, I just don't think it warrants its own article. Just as tubgirl redirects to shock site, my recommendation would be to redirect this to shock site as well. It doesn't fit perfectly but it's close enough. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A temporary internet fad with references to mostly internet blogs or other non-reliable websites is not notability. I would not care if this page was completely deleted or redirected, but having this discussion here that might end up in a redirect is a quick way to settle a dispute over what to do with a page. I am against censorship and support providing information that is "nonconventional". My nomination has nothing to do with not liking the content. I don't want Wikipedia to become a trash dump of non-notable brief internet fads like this page. There are plenty of other pages that could also be deleted but this is simply a place to start. LonelyMarble (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you guys elaborate more why this meets notability criteria as per my expanded explanation above? Especially why you say this meets Notability is not temporary because even if you argue the sources are significant, which I argue they are not, why is this article anything more than a short burst of news mentions? LonelyMarble (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there isn't a constant stream of sources being added to the article does not indicate that it isn't being talked about (regardless of the fact that notability is not temporary). A quick search on google news finds plenty of mentions within the last few days. — OcatecirT 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at what the google news search returns though, it is all 1 word mentions of it in articles about other things not related. Soon that 1 word mention won't even happen. The point about the "notability is not temporary" is that this was never really notable in the first place. A viral video or shock site that gets brief attention is pretty much equivelent to a brief news report. We don't need an article on all of them. Quoted from WP:IINFO: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." Long term notability would be the only thing that would make this article notable at all. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you ignore the Slate slideshow, because Google News returns hits talking about it on the #1 and #3 hits as of February 16 and the Slate article relieves any lingering doubts about its notability as it is the very definition of coverage by a reliable third party source. Notability was established before, but with the addition of the Slate article this nomination really has no footing and should be withdrawn. — OcatecirT 05:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my explanation I do mention policies, but the basic point is it doesn't establish notability, see: WP:NOT#NEWS. And a redirect to me is almost the same as a deletion. This is a discussion on what to do with the page. A redirect to a "mother" article, such as shock site, is not much different than simply deleting the page. If I simply redirected the page to shock site without this nomination and discussion it would be argued and reverted endlessly. This is a way to have a formal discussion. In retrospect, maybe I should have nominated this for deletion a couple months from now because people love to include current non-encyclopedic events in Wikipedia. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not to be used to stimulate discussion for a redirect. That is to be done on the article's talk page. You either want it deleted or not. This is not a news story and continually referencing WP:NOT#NEWS is a red herring. The article and its sources talk about it as a phenomenon and the coverage spans over months. — OcatecirT 05:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion for a deletion. I just don't mind if it was redirected since there's nothing wrong with having redirect pages to mother articles. I mentioned Not News because that user asked for specific policies and that could apply here. But in my explanation I talked specifically about the policy of WP:Notability and that despite the article having sources I don't feel they are significant sources, or that this article needs its own page. About your comment above regarding the Slate article, that doesn't change what I've already been saying, brief mentions of something in a news source doesn't automatically mean it should have its own article, which is why I mentioned the Not News policy. LonelyMarble (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7 pages solely about 2girls1cup and the reaction videos is not a brief mention. If you can't see that then you definitely have no credibility to be evaluating sources. — OcatecirT 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did read all 7 pages of that Slate article. In my opinion the Slate article is more about shock sites and the disgust and reaction they cause than specifically about 2 Girls 1 Cup. It even mentions "shock site" and talks about the psychology of disgust. All this information seems better fit in the shock site article than having a separate article specifically for this one video. A lot of the sources, like this one, are using 2 Girls 1 Cup as just an example to talk more broadly about shock sites and the disgusting side of the internet, which would all be better talked about in one more notable and encyclopedic article. Please don't get defensive and attack me personally, my opinion is this article does not warrant its own page and just because it may have a couple sources mentioning it does not mean there's an automatic rule saying it should have its own article. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No... literally... it is one of the most well known videos from the internet. There have been so many other videos made just about this video, it's insane. Nearly everyone (in the US) has heard of this, and, if they haven't, a quick search will bring up millions (literally, millions of results). And that doesn't even include videos! I'd like to hear a counter-argument as to how & why it is not one of the most notable internet videos ever, if you disagree. нмŵוτнτ 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a shock site, it is a viral video and it is notable for the reaction videos it has spawn. Redirecting it to an article in which it would not fit would not be appropriate. It has enough sources and is its own phenomenon, therefore it deserves its own article, Wikipedia is not paper. — OcatecirT 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think to the future a couple months, a redirect to shock site will give a much better perspective and encylopedic article about what this video was. In a very short amount of time, or even at this present time I bet, a redirect will be more beneficial for an encylopedic article. If your argument is for what is best for readers, then a redirect is definitely best, because this specific article only has very fleeting usefulness. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I fail to see how less information benefits the reader. How does making another article longer help the reader? If enough verified, relevant information can be used to have an article, how does redirecting it to an article on a subject that does not define it (it is not a site, it is a video) help the reader? It is not a shock site, there is more to it than just one section in another article can provide, and it has enough sources to stand on its own as an article. I don't see why this article is being held to a higher standard than any other article. It is more than adequately sourced and structured to be its own article, so I don't understand why it needs to be merged. We aren't worried about space concerns, Wikipedia is not paper. Your logic is very flawed here. — OcatecirT 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why shoud we be worried that this article will eventually become dated? When it does, it will naturally be deleted. Certainly without all the discussion we are having here. So why hurry?
A pause, here, to put the elephant over the table: I believe it is quite obvious that what propels some people to hurriedly try to erase this article is a (quite justifiable) disgust for the whole matter it covers. Most of us would probably prefer not having the "2 girls 1 cup" subject ever crossing our ways. But this is not a good reason to erase this article.
And, again, I propose this is a good occasion to discuss this "do not post articles on notorious, but temporary topics" rule. Why not?! This is one more beautiful side-benefit of Wikipedia being what it is: a collective, dynamic, ever-evolving, ever-growing, body of knowledge. Keep the article, while it is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmellof (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 February 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.
More