Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24-Hour Vevo Record

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 merge to Vevo. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24-Hour Vevo Record

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be something made up one day. No Google hits at all barring the sources listed in the article (all of which reference Vevo's Twitter handle, which seems to be the only place this 'record' exists on the internet). Willing to be proven wrong, but not convinced this is notable enough for an article of its own. — foxj 00:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, gonna recommend this is merged with Vevo. — foxj 00:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say delete it because there doesn't seem to be any claim of notability. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. A good example for WP:NOT. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vevo as it does receive consistent coverage, however, it lacks the independent, in-depth coverage necessary to establish notability. The coverage is basically short articles based on VEVO Tweets and Tumblr posts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The Vevo-record isn't something that's made up. The article is filled with sources from Billboard, one of the most respected news outlets in terms of music, and others. Vevo even has a webpage dedicated to the record (See here). Type in "Taylor Swift Vevo record" on Google and you'll find over 600,000 results with over dozens of articles reporting on it. So no, the Vevo record isn't made up and I don't see a problem with it having it's separate article keeping track of the record. Moonsprite (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

Comment Merge I don't think a Tumblr page ↑ is enough, and I can barely see it as an important achievement. On the other hand, Adele apparently just broke the record and the media (Billboard, Rolling Stone) is going to announce it big. A little section on the Vevo article like: Adele holds the 24 Hour Vevo Record for .. most views, previously held by Taylor Swift with xxxx views for her video "x", would be enough. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Moonsprite's arguments above. The list gives a historical insight into specific events in popular culture. Btljs (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment only I'm not sure why it's necessary for this discussion to be reopened. The entire reason this discussion got started is because the person who nominated it for deletion thought the Vevo record was something that was made up. Now that Adele's Hello has just beaten the record, just take a look at all the media coverage about her beating the record is taking place. It DOES exist and is it fully acknowledged by VEVO. The person also claimed there when you Google the Vevo record, the only thing that appears are the sources mentioned in the article. This is not true at all. Just Google Taylor Swift Vevo record and you'll see dozens of articles reporting on it. Moonsprite (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

@Moonsprite: Because A) consensus had not been reached B) you are not permitted to close a deletion discussion in which you yourself have participated. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vevo. While there is coverage of this topic, I feel this isn't notable enough for its own page. A simple mention on the Vevo page, similar to Cornerstonepicker's proposal above, should suffice. Prhdbt [talk] 20:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reverted a non-admin close by Moonsprite, which was improper because (a) the discussion has not run its full period, (b) there are delete !votes, and (c) Moonsprite had already !voted. Those who have already contributed can examine Moonsprite's addition and decide whether or not to change their !votes, but the discussion should run for its full time. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep The Vevo record gives such a big insight into specific events in popular culture. Merging it would mean nobody would know who held the record in 2012, 2013, 2014, or any other year for that matter. There would be a loss of knowledge that would be very hard to get a look at anywhere else. And the Vevo record exists nonetheless. Just because Vevo hasn't decided to give out psychical awards for this, doesn't make it any less valid. We live in a time where millions upon millions of people can watch something in 24 hours, and we have the technology to keep track of it, but it's not considered "notable enough" to get an article because it "doesn't exist". I'm urging a strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UniverseLight (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

@UniverseLight: Yet only DigitalSpy has been reporting it (the first four). Was it really relevant? sounds like fan stuff until the "We Can't Stop" controversy happened and everybody wanted to know how many views it got. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: UniverseLight has only 3 edits attributed to the account; two are on this AFD, and the other is removing the AFD tag off the 24-Hour Vevo Record page. Prhdbt [talk] 21:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Strong keep - most views in 24 hours on YouTube is a pretty big deal, and the honour of being the most viewed music video in 24 hours have been heralded vigorously by those who have achieved the top spot in the past; Nicki Minaj especially. However, there needs to be more sources to verify whether or not there is an official award by Vevo and that this is the official name of the honour. Otherwise, a different name for the article should be considered. For what the article is about, essentially, it should be kept, since it's definitely an honour that is held high in popular culture nowadays. Philip Terry Graham 01:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesna Wylde: It's not for the most views on YouTube. It's only for music videos for musicians whose labels are signed with VEVO. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Way to over-scrutinise somebody's words. Of course that's what I meant; I also was trying to say that most views in 24 hours on YouTube in general is a pretty big deal in the media and popular culture, and that an article on it should exist, regardless of whether or not an official accolade for music videos by Vevo exists and can be verified by reliable sources. Philip Terry Graham 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesna Wylde: I don't see how I overscrutinized your words. That's what you said, and you still don't seem to understand the difference. The real champion of this criteria (most viewed video in 24 hours on YouTube) is Gangnam Style by Psy, but it's not even on this list because Psy is not signed to a VEVO label. I agree that most views in 24 hours on YouTube is a big deal for pop culture, but that's not what this article is about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vevo is merely a subset of YouTube videos that includes only musicians signed to three major labels. It's purely a marketing thing. There are other YouTube records and other viral videos that are excluded because they don't yet partner with VEVO. The real world record (as acknowledged by the Guinness Book of World Records) is for Psy's video but it is not included because he was not signed with VEVO at the time. It has some notability but I don't see anything in-depth that would give notability to the record itself (ie, articles talking about in-depth about why the record is notable). This fails Wikipedia notability in that area. UniverseLight Note the people suggesting merge - we are not advocating deleting the contents, just merging it with the already existing VEVO article, so the content would not be lost. It's not very long and is certainly appropriate to be included in the VEVO article itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: " It's purely a marketing thing." Yeah, so is Valentine's Day, should we merge that with Love too? And you're acting like there are so many more videos that are being watched millions upon millions of times in 24 hours. Besides Psy's video, it's pretty much just Vevo music videos. Just check List of most viewed online videos in first 24 hours. Over half of the videos on that list have received the Vevo record. Besides, if you check stats.grok.se, the article received over 15,000 views on October 24, 2015. Clearly, enough people think this award is "notable" enough to look it up.

You don't seem to understand how notability on Wikipedia works if that is your analogy. Additionally, people will still be able to find it on the VEVO article. That's what merge means. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge with Vevo: I don't think this really needs its own page, but rather its own section on the Vevo page instead. It's notable, but again, doesn't need its own page. Aria1561 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to remind you all that the Vevo record was already merged once with the Vevo page a few years ago, but after a hefty debate it was removed completely from the page along with a couple of other things. Moonsprite (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

It's not really relevant for an AfD, although I looked at the talk page and archive for Vevo and there is no such discussion I could see. By the way @Moonsprite:, are you also Alvandria, this article's creator? —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vevo. Not independently notable. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to me. Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly and The Telegraph have all reported on the Vevo record at one time or another.Amynewyork4248 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please hold off closing until the SPI I just opened is dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note:. Moonsprite and UniverseLight are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alvandria.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational and encyclopedic. Also, as per comment by Amynewyork4248, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vevo: I think this is something very important, but it doesn't need its own page. A section on VEVO's page would be great. I loved the Cornerstonepicker's idea, just the table with few lines about its previous and currently holder. About the sources, I'm sure it's easy to find references provided by magazines, like Billboard or EW, and change them. GagaNutella^talk 19:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vevo: This article is completely superseded by List of most viewed online videos in first 24 hours, which lists all sources, not just those from certain record labels. No reason to have both.
Merge with Vevo. per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I won't oppose, per WP:BITE, a merge. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2015 (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.