Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benny Lava

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 and redirect to Mondegreen, where reference to this video's director (and some of the language in this article) already exists.

Obviously many people feel strongly about this video, which may be why a number of contributors who do not display much other involvement on Wikipedia have arrived to offer their opinions. For the benefit of those who may be otherwise unfamiliar with the deletion discussion environment, let me explain briefly that the job of an administrator closing a deletion debate is to determine consensus as developed in the argument by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Unfortunately, many of the opinions offered are not based upon the issues listed at our deletion policy, but are rather arguments based from side issues that are not relevant to the question of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted. For example, as the umbrella article on notability indicates, "Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it." For that reason, while arguments based on fame have been considered in the question of whether deletion or redirection is more appropriate, they have had to be otherwise disregarded as not related. Likewise, the fact that the article may have attracted some viewers to Wikipedia is irrelevant in determining whether or not the article is appropriate, though usefulness may factor in to the question of redirecting. Other arguments that are problematic for reasons explained at the informative essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions have also been advanced.

The core policies and guidelines at consideration in this AfD after unrelated issues are removed are "what Wikipedia is not" and the notability guidelines for web content (though, of course, other policies & guidelines matter as related to that, including "Verifiability" and "Original research". Consensus--which does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome, but only that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome--is clear that within this framework, this material is notable enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, but that there have not been presented sufficient "multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources" to verify that the article is notable enough to stand alone. In addition to those contributors explicitly suggesting merge and redirection, contributors arguing for deletion (Ashiwin) and keep (UrsoBR) have also indicated that this outcome is acceptable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benny Lava

Benny Lava (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article is not encyclopedic in character. It is more to self-promotion of Buffalax (see WP:SOAP), and Wikipedia is not a place for original inventions (see WP:NOT#OR), please feel free to discuss this matter below. Kotakkasut (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep But if the consensus is to delete, I'll live. -- Quartermaster (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

kewl beans. leave it here. i used it to look up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.252.238 (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for keeping: I think there was a bit of work put into the article (e.g., the translations of some of the lyrics). I stumbled upon the article and found it useful and interesting. -- Quartermaster (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. There are thousands of viral videos which are more significant than this one, but they don't have their own pages, plus this article is like an original invention, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. In short, this article would be appropriate in a Buffalax fan site, not Wikipedia. 118.100.10.79 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hey, thanks for all of the feedback, but I would like to ask for your help, when commenting about whether to keep or to delete this article, please state the reason on why this article should be kept/deleted from Wikipedia, because I don't want to offend anyone if they are unsatisfied with the verdict afterwards, thanks... Kotakkasut (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential Malay/Tamil conflict of interest and lack of disclosure comment:

A tiny bit of research indicates that there is a potential conflict of interest and lack of disclosure element in this AfD request. I'm not sure that the motivation behind the request to delete this article is because the article "is not encyclopedic in nature" or if the subject (making fun of Prabhu Deva Sundaram's song, "Kalluri Vaanil" from the Indian Tamil movie, Pennin Manathai Thottu) is bothersome. The request to delete should be based on honest and clearly stated concerns, and I don't think that it is in this case. If you don't like the fact that a movie/culture/language is being lampooned, state that as your reason. If I'm wrong here, feel free to correct me. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify here. There is NOTHING wrong with being concerned about the potentially offensive nature of the Benny Lava article. My main point is that if that is, indeed, the motivation for requesting a deletion, that should be stated up front. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Wikipedia should not be promoting such little articles. If every video on Youtube had an article, Wikipedia's article count would double.--LAAFan 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't smell right here

Sorry, but if Benny Lava is a "little article" then what about this blatant commercial you recently edited? I don't think many people are monitoring this (and again, I don't give a rat's butt about the Benny Lava article, frankly), but there's something fishy about this AfD. There are lots of minor Internet memes like this, not all deserving of articles. But, please, address the issue with some sort of rationale instead of vagaries and straw men arguments. -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment To Quartermaster, as I mentioned in the first post, the reason on why this article is not encyclopedic in nature is because:

1. It's a self-promotion of Buffalax, (WP:SOAP) and

2. This article is like an original invention. (WP:NOT#OR)

but if you insist that it is lampooning a movie/culture/language, I guess that I can add it to the third reason. Kotakkasut (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Reauest I'm confused. Are you talking about the article itself, or the subject of the article? Do you mean we should now ferret out all articles about movies, books, and stories if they lampoon some culture or language? -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep After watching the YouTube video I wanted to know more about the original music video so I searched for "Benny Lava" and it led me to Wikipedia and onto Prabhu Deva Sundaram. This is what Wikipedia is about, you would never see this article in Britannica sadly. Article is useful. Justin Morris ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Now I'm beginning to wonder on why this article can't be found in Britannica if it's useful... Kotakkasut (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh?Justin Morris ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Observation The print edition of Britannica has only 65,000 articles, and wikipedia has app. 2.4 million articles so 97 percent of all wikipedia articles are not in Britannica. -- Quartermaster (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot. Wikipedia is not Britannica. Silly me. Kotakkasut (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: We can think about youtube videos in general, but I think we need to consider the particular details, too. If this is a minor detail related to a movie we have an article on, maybe it should have a sentence or two in there. So far, I don't see that this has gotten the kind of coverage in other sources that we'd need to have an article just on it. But, just because sources haven't been found yet doesn't mean they don't exist. Certainly we should avoid using internet forums as sources. Friday (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The references suggest that the subject is at least somewhat notable, so I can't really recommend deletion. Perhaps merge/redirect to Mondegreen? --Alan Au (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, maybe it does not deserve its own article, but the content should not be removed from Wikipedia, a merge may be appropriate.Justin Morris ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment OK let's summarize this discussion, main points are italicized

I nominated Benny Lava for deletion because it lacks the criteria to qualify as a Wikipedia article, but it is useful and notable (the reasons are not clearly stated), and now I'm confused. Kotakkasut (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. To clarify, I'm using the external references (Toronto Sun, Wired) as an indicator of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web). However, I personally consider it only borderline notable, which is why I recommend a merge/redirect. --Alan Au (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Although it does sound like an advertisement for Buffalax, I still think it's useful. L337p4wn (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me like we should edit out the prominence of "Buffalax" (thought I think he has to be mentioned sinces he's the author). -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The article may be imperfect or flawed - and in that case, it can and should be corrected and improved - but I believe it should be kept, for the following reasons:

- While there are other Internet memes and YouTube videos that are immensely popular, not many of them have so many rich implications and side references as this one. In spite of the video's comic nature, the article leads one to be interested and learn about memes, humor, mondegreens, Indian cinema, Tamil culture, language and dance, Prabhu Deva Sundaram, the ethic boundaries of humor, whether it is acceptable to mock a different culture and language (from what I read, some Indians were offended, but most laughed along - and twice as hard, because of the added component of understanding the actual lyrics)... I couldn't think of a better example of what makes a hypertext encyclopedia so useful and so rich in possibilities.

- Is the article self-promotion for Buffalax? Well, I was unable to find out who first created the article, but obviously, unless it was Buffalax himself, I don't think this applies. I also didn't have time to browse the previous versions, but I don't think the current one does much more than give due credit to the parody's creator. Maybe the mention to the "buffalaxed" neologism could be further sourced and verified (and perhaps removed, if that proved not to be possible), but calling the article "(self-)promotion" sounds a bit too strong to me.

- Likewise, I read the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy and don't think this article qualifies as such. The NOR rule "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Well, any Google search will yield dozens of published news stories on the video (maybe they should just be linked, too). Even the only opinionated part - the "web's hottest clip" one - does reference one such opinion. For the most part, the article contains factual and easily verifiable information that could never be classified as "speculation," and does not forward any "original" ideas that I could see.

  Also, it is based on a notorious fact that doesn't really need a "source" in the more usual sense of the word as applied in Wikipedia. I mean, it is not based on hearsay or something readers can't verify by themselves and have to believe what they read: one just has to go to YouTube and bear witness first-hand that the video is there and corresponds to what the article describes. So, I don't think that it qualifies as "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position," because I can't see any "position" being advanced there.

- Notability is often a debatable issue. It has been argued here that the article could possibly be merged to the one on mondegreens, and that would certainly be acceptable, but like I said above, this article has so many ramifications (albeit poorly linked as it is) that I believe it would be much better if it could reference and be referenced in its own right. It could also be merged into the article on Internet memes, or the one on YouTube, Indian/Tamil cinema, Prabhu Deva Sundaram, Pennin Manathai Tottu, humor, satire, etc., but while an internal link would do the trick in technical terms, if there are so many references I believe this is an indication of notability.

- For that matter, I personally believe that anything that causes such a commotion involving millions of people and introduces many of them to so many things is notable. I don't know if Wikipedia keeps a public record of page hits, but I wouldn't be surprised if the hits to this article were in the order of tens or hundreds of thousands. I looked for it first thing after I watched the video (and somehow I knew I would find it here), and I'm sure many more people did. If this is not notable, I don't know what could be. Even if it is an ephemerous fad, Wikipedia is full of fads that were significant at their time, from the hula hoop to the letkiss. Anyway, WP:Notability clearly states: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."

- Don't forget we are talking about an Internet meme. The very concept of memes implies that they are diffused through unconventional means that more often than not are very hard to trace, if at all. Does the usual rigor about "sources" and "coverage" apply to this particular situation? It could be argued whether memes can qualify as encyclopedic, but Benny Lava is not a common meme; it stands out for its reach, peculiar characteristics and ramifications. If it is considered to be encyclopedic, however, I believe its meme nature has to be taken into consideration.

If the article is kept, I even have two additions to suggest. The first is that it be mentioned that Benny Lava is actually not the first mondegreen on the Kalluri Vaanil video: a Brazilian Portuguese version[1] was posted to YouTube over a year before Buffalax's version (June 22, 2006 vs. Aug. 18, 2007), but failed to reach the same wide audience due to the more limited reach of the language. (I could add this information myself, but don't want to waste my efforts if the article is going to be deleted.) And the second suggestion is that some Tamil speaker add the untransliterated sample lyrics in the Tamil script; I can't read or understand Tamil myself and can't verify that, but this might interest Tamil-speaking users and purists.

--UrsoBR (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I think Kotakkasut has some sense here. The WP:NOT#OR clearly states that

Original inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.

so that applies for this article. Secondly if we mention about videos in YouTube that has a hundred thousand plus hits, yes I agree that this video is one of them but do remember that there are other clips in YouTube that has more hits than this one, and yet they don't have their own articles.

Thirdly, loony bun is Tamil culture?

So in my opinion, this article should be deleted. If that's not possible, it should be merged with other relevant article, one thing for sure, it doesn't deserve its own article. Ashiwin (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment now I'm super confused. I think it would be advisable that I shouldn't nominate any other articles for deletion in the future. But to answer Ashiwin's question, loony bun is definitely not Tamil culture lol! x) Like I said, we should ask the opinions of administrators about this article. I am also requesting that an admin should judge the verdict of the discussion. Ps. I hope that everyone is in their coolest mood when discussing about this article, peace =) Kotakkasut (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I wanted more information on the YT vid and was lead to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.54.23 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (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.