Talk:Ken Lee (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ken Lee (song) article.
Article policies

[edit] hackneyed is the wrong word to describe this version of the song

hackneyed means clichéd or trite. her version of the song was incorrect, but it was hardly trite. "garbled", i think would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.181.191.169 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More lyrics

The full version of this song can be found here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fkrC9P1IvIE The convo that went on between the judges was longer. She said that she didn't know English very well, so it is wrong to say that she 'insisted that the garbled lyrics were english.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.92.129 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I saw this video before, but i saw dozens of other funny videos on YouTube, and none of them has a Wikipedia article. Number of views on YouTube is hardly a proof of notability by itself.

I almost nominated this one for deletion, but then i saw that the article in Bulgarian has some external links. If any of them are reliable sources that prove notability, then they should be added here, with some explanation.

If there are no such sources, this should be nominated for deletion. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has a couple references now, one in english, the other in Bulgarian I believe. The english reference seems good enough. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


I think this article should definitely be deleted, because this "Keen Lee" thing is not a real song. It's not even a parody. It's nothing but a silly try to sing. There are hundreds of similar participants like that women in the other country's musical talent shows, but, as already noted, they all have no wikipedia article and are not given with that kind of importation.
In conclusion - Again, I think the article should be deleted! But even if it isn't it must at least no be referred as a song, since it's not a song! And something else - what do these garbled lyrics have to do with the Bulgarian language to have a bulgarian transcription of the name?
Misho (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you to an extent. It does seem like an absurd subject for an article. Yet, what is "important" is entirely relative. Obviously this performance was important enough to people that they felt compelled to write about it. I think this is where Wikipedia can really show its strengths. There is virtually no limit to the size to which Wikipeida can grow. As people all over the world add their knowledge to the site in more and more articles, it will get closer and closer to reflecting the collective knowledge of mankind. It will never get there completely, but it will be closer. Mainstream encyclopedias only feature larger topics, but our lives are market by many obscure places, people, and events. Just because they are less known or less famous does not mean that they are without value, or that we shouldn't be able to read and learn about them. Wikipedia, in my opinion, will never beat traditional encyclopedias head-on at their own game. In order to earn its permanent place in the world, Wikipedia will have to be different from traditional reference sources in ways beyond the mere fact that it is collaboratively written.
Yes, the performance is trivial, but in very many ways it also reflects global culture at this moment at the dawn of the Information Age. As for this article, imagine that someone many decades from now were to do research on the early 2000's. If this article were to still exist, it would certainly be rather meaningful to him or her. The article unintentionally tells a lot about the kinds of information we share with each other, what we find funny, how we share information, it is the product of cultural cross-pollination unimaginable a generation ago, a prime example of "reality" television, etc. Good or bad, we live in an age in which Andy Warhol's often-quoted prediction that "in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes" is coming true before our eyes. Long story short, it's not the actual performance itself, but the context, the reactions, and the culture's response to it that are most significant. Udibi (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line, it's not about the song (per se) that's relevant BUT it's cultural impact that is notable †Bloodpack† 05:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what cultural impact this has had. It hasn't reached NEARLY the level of notoriety of say, Numa Numa, The Ultimate Showdown, Chocolate Rain, Rickrolling, or Peanut Butter Jelly time, to name a few. I see a lot of good articles get deleted and this crap remains? Sage. PiemanXC (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)