Talk:Inmendham

OH FOR CHRIST'S SAKES NOT ANOTHER FUCKIN' YOUTUBER PAGE

Why not change the name of the website to youtubedirectory.com? How many of these fuckin' articles about losers with webcams do we need? 02:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: P-Foster / talk / contribs}

ONE FOR ALL OF THEM!!!!! Oooh, and then we can make one for every single video every single one has ever made or promised to make, and then ones for all the video responses. Ooooooh, and then we could make a searchable cross-referenced index of all comments on every video. Thanks for the great idea P-Foster; I'm putting you in charge of this necessary project. Thunderkatz^Ho! 02:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Also, I agree with you, if that wasn't obvious. Thunderkatz^Ho! 02:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This does not warrant being deleted

Users who have actually contributed to the atheist community should be able to have a page. If users like Thunderf00t and TheAmazingAtheist are allowed to have pages, then inmendham and other users who have made an impact on youtube should be allowed to have a page. Maybe we can have a criteria for who qualifies to have a page here. ^{— Unsigned, by: Babaoriley90210 / talk / contribs}

Would it be too much to suggest that we have an article only for those YouTubers whom people outside the YouTube community have heard of? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No. No it would not. P-Foster (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So users like TheAtheistAnidote and other users who have around 2000-5000 users on YT are not necessarily important enough to have a page? This is an editable wiki, and users who have promoted rationality should be allowed to have pages. User:Babaoriley90210/sig0

Corretion: TheAtheistAnidote is a Christian Creationist and has a YT page, yet he has 2,000+ subscribers on YT. Yet inmendham has 8,000 subscribers and doesn't have a page, and you complain that it's too much? I don't understand. There's no necessity to delete the page, so forget about deleting it. User:Babaoriley90210/sig0

No. no they are not. P-Foster (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Must be a full moon or something. I agree with LX. Blue (is useful) 03:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to define notability, I think. Some videos get lots of hits, others don't (my channel has a spread between 35 and 380,000 views). Some go viral due to mirroring and YouTube trying to crack down on it, others don't. You could equally replace "notability" with merit as an argument, though. Is said YouTuber just sitting with a shit webcam with their hand down their crotch not saying anything interesting? Then no, not worth it. Do they have watchable videos with decent content that actually make use of the visual medium, rather than being just a grainy talking head? Yeah, that's worth including. ^{d hominem} 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

on that basis you'd have to exclude NephilimFree. Notability (pageviews + visibility outside YT) is important, as is missionality. Does Inmendham fit these vaguely-defined criteria? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Poking RC for input on this. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete

Yea

Nay

Goat No harm in keeping it, no harm in deleting it. (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)