"...all the talk about it - whether its a cell phone or not - makes it notable. And of course, there are citations galore for it...The content is related to the film; Extras footage sold with the actual film has already determined that."
"I just can't believe this has been mentioned in the article. Story appears to be this. 1: Man watches DVD extra, notices woman with hand to ear. 2: Posts youtube video discussing it. 3: Picked up by media, therefore important and verifiable and newsworthy. 4: Man's video is mentioned in the article for the film. 5: Article on great work of art not improved at all."
"Reducing the section down to a bare minimum seems fine, excising it and ignoring it altogether isn't. It wasn't something just mentioned in a couple of blogs, many mainstream news outlets picked up on it and therefore there should be some mention of it."
"In retrospect, these news reports did not develop into anything of lasting value...Per policy, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." WP:BURDEN on editor who adds material to demonstrate evidence of *enduring* notability."
"...there is too much of "it on snoozetube its the most important thing ever, did you know that up to 1% of the worlds internet users have looked at it?" nonsence on wikipeida...WP:EVENT.... Notnews makes it claer that single events that have no lasting imopact have no place on wikipedia. I have said it before and I'll say it again...the notability is not temporary argument is used to keep material that is onlot here oni sufereage."
"I agree that the time travel story does not merit the long-term notability needed for it. But we're talking about inclusion of reliably-sourced neutral explanation of the event connected to this film; we don't have to show notability, but make sure that we're supplying verifiable sources and in an unbiased manner...the inclusion is not to say time travel is possible, but that as part of the film's DVD release, there was a short period where a video extra caught the Internet's attention and later debunked. No POV is taken by that. Completely appropriate as part of the legacy of the film...what is being added is not saying "There was possible evidence of time travel from an extra on the Circus DVD release" (that would be the FRINGE aspect that we need to avoid). What is being said is "On release of the Circus on DVD, a special that appeared to show a woman with a cell phone (but later proven to be a hearing aid) attracted some Internet attention". That's a non-fringe that is backed up by the sources. It doesn't need much more than a sentence or two to say that and add refs, but it would be improper to ignore it."
"WP:EVENT and the like don't apply to the material in an article. WP:UNDUE does however. I'd argue that a whole section (even "see also") may be undue weight even as a single sentence. Squeezing in a sentence somewhere would seem reasonable however. In any case, I see no reason why this can't be included here if done correctly."
"It's just an internet meme, loony and inconsequential, excluded by WP:ONEWAY. I am suspicious of the motivations of people so desperate for its inclusion. Waste no more time on it."
"To the extent that the idea of a time traveller is taken seriously, WP:FRINGE applies. To the extent that it's a guerrilla marketing stunt for a DVD, the spirit of WP:BOOKSPAM applies. To the extent that this is an internet phenomenon, WP:RECENTISM applies. One of the things that Wikipedia is often criticised for is the inclusion of, and sometimes ridiculous weight given to, relatively irrelevant recent developments. A typical example would be discussing a film based on a Shakespeare play in detail in the article on the play. The present example is less typical only in that it is much more crass and shameless. It took some time to develop, but there is now a project-wide consensus that trivia must not be given undue weight in articles about serious topics. I don't see why the present article should be an exception. A "see also" link is fine. A single sentence with a link is fine. (But not both.) More than a sentence is undue."
"If this article was much longer, then a couple of sentences on the time travel meme would be ok. As the article stands right now, a link in the "See also" section appears to be adequate and appropriate."
"No, to having it discussed in this article. The few reliable sources are so short and non-newsy (i.e., feature type stories that are just fluff) that having it mentioned in this article is WP:UNDUE. The Telegraph article mentioned just above, for example, is six sentences long. Yes, to having a link under See Also: Even though the YouTube "story" doesn't merit its own Wikipedia article, I think that a link to the Time Travel Urban Legends page under See Also gives it due and appropriate weight."
Comment: How, precisely, is it undue weight? The way I see it, it is a brief reporting of a current bit in an endemic article. If anything, the article should be expanded. Other examples of similar instances in the articles (The Crow and Poltergeist and others spring to mind) actually go into greater detail thanes presented here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
"WP:DUE: this is a recent internet meme, in no proportion to the notability of the 1928 picture...Inclusion of this item is leeching off the notability of the 1928 film even though the fact that the 1928 footage is from the premiere of a notable film is completely irrelevant. If people think this has any notability, let them create a George Clarke article and defend it on its own merits. "
"It was not seen in the film, but in film of the premiere (assuming its not a hoax). That is why its undue, its not about the making of the film or even how well the film did just some in incidental piece of trivia. There may be a place for it, but not here"
"This has nothing to do with the film. The fact that she happened be recorded walking along when there was a premiere of this particular film is pure coincidence. It might as well have been any other film or any other occasion on which people might have been filmed walking down the street. In other words the link to the film is virtually non-existent. That does not mean that the incident is necessarily not worth discussing, but that it does not belong in this particular article."
"The YouTube video of the Irish filmmaker showing a 4 second clip of a "DVD extra" is what got millions of hits, not the Chaplin film. The Chaplin film was never seen or examined. Yes, the film is peripherally related to this Internet meme, but so is Chaplin, time travel, cell phones, etc. and we're certainly not disrupting those articles."
"I am of the opinion that the event should be included, in a popular cultural reference section...I don't think that the event could stand in an article all by itself, as has been recommended by at least one person (which to me seems like a sneaky way to simple delete the content indirectly); I am fairly certain that few pop cultural references could survive in their own article, especially when it seem inextricably linked to the film and it's premiere."
"The objections are based on the fact that A; it has had no lasting impact (not news), B: most (if not all the coverage) treated it prety much as a but of a joke (not news, Trivial, fringe), C: that it has nothing to do with the actual film (Fringe, Undue), D: that no actual expert has accpted the 'time traveller' explantion (fringe), E: that (as far as I can tell) RS have generaly not confirmed what the one reported witness has seen (fringe)."
"..prior to the YouTube video and subsequent reporting my major media outlets, the page statistics indicated maybe a dozen people visited the article on a busy day. When the story broke, the page stats for the article went through the roof, and one day featured over 17,000 hits. Even after the story died down, the page statistics have not returned to their previous levels. As well, there are over a million web hits for this particular topic. Conservatively (ie. removing blogs and other non-rs crap), the numbers for the the internet/news story mightily exceed the number of hits for simply the movie itself...I think its great that Time travel urban legends was created to cover these sorts of matters, but it doesn't really replace the need to at least mention the incident in the film article."
"...page view statistics on wikipedia are not the criterion used for including material in wikipedia articles...None of this is reported in anything close to a WP:RS. That is the problem. In the case of claims like that, a report from the United States National Academy of Sciences might provide such a source. Up until now, no scientific body has made any comment, whence the extreme fringey nature of this highly questionable material. There seems to be no point in continuing to repeat invalid circular arguments ad nauseam."
"...it does not appear on all DVD releases, as such it is not automatically associated with the film, but only with a specific release of the film (not indeed does this footage appear in all versions of the premier footage). Thus we have a single instance of one persons claim, that it not visible everywhere, that has been dismissed by every expert (and news report as a 'fun' story), that the originator himself is not sure is true (and for which he has another explanation), that there are alternative theories (that obey Ocams razor far more then a Time traveller). In an article that is not about Mr Clarke (or time travel), not the premier of the film, not the DVD realise the clip appears on but about the film itself (about which none off the internet speculation has been about). As has been pointed out by antler user this has no more relevance to the film then liz Hurley’s knockers has to Four weddings and a funeral"
"Simply put: WP:N, WP:UNDUE and WP:ILIKEIT apply here. This is a flash in the pan that's already dying out as a meme, not a notable event relating to the film. It certainly doesn't stand on its own, and has no more relevance to the film than a bug getting hit by a Ferrari affects the history of the cars. People come up with these silly things all the time: it's called Pareidolia. A notable occurrence would be things like the supposed hidden "sex" message in The Lion King, which has received widespread coverage and still comes up in the media from time to time. This isn't even a blip on the radar."
"Wikipedia should not be used to permanently record the latest fad. Yes, someone made a youtube video, and someone made some silly claims. In a year, if a reliable source performs an analysis of the topic of the article (i.e. The Circus (film), not time traveling), the "popular culture" section can be inserted with a note about its relevance to the topic of the article. Currently, it is just non-encyclopedic trivia."
"A youtube fad like this, if it's being reported in reliable sources a year from now, reaches the threshold of meriting a sentence or two in a pop culture section."
