Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fighters Lovers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep (according to Proto's edit summary on the page being AfD'd). --ais523 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Non-notable company --Gabi S. 13:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for [1] and [2] - multiple sources make it notable. Trebor 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment articles itself are not sufficient to estabilish notability. There are millions newspapers articles about nothing. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This clearly has. What counts as sufficient to establish notability? A newspaper article provides coverage and verifiable information, so that an article can be written. Trebor 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look here [3], an article about Santa Claus Supermarket - subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent... Notice in newspapers does not assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask again: what does? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All you have are two or three newspapers articles. In newspapers there are thousands notices about crimes, elections, singing dogs ... Just buy The Economist and you'll find notices about hundreds of companies - small, big, ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So you keep saying, but you haven't answered me about what would assert notability. Trebor 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read carefully the second article you've provided, you will see it is rather about Venstresocialisterne than this company. Maybe we would rather merging this to Venstresocialisterne instead of keep or delete. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would be a possibility. But I think there exists enough information for an article on both, neither article would be very short on its own. Trebor 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So you keep saying, but you haven't answered me about what would assert notability. Trebor 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All you have are two or three newspapers articles. In newspapers there are thousands notices about crimes, elections, singing dogs ... Just buy The Economist and you'll find notices about hundreds of companies - small, big, ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask again: what does? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look here [3], an article about Santa Claus Supermarket - subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent... Notice in newspapers does not assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. This clearly has. What counts as sufficient to establish notability? A newspaper article provides coverage and verifiable information, so that an article can be written. Trebor 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've been able to find just two articles about this "notable" company [4] and [5] which really is not enough to assert notability. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by notability? I thought we had the common definition that if something has multiple non-trivial sources, it is notable. What would assert notability? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So tell me, why it fails here Milivoje Bozic. Same situation. You tell me. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We can also discuss what exactly is non-trivial published works. Newspapers article is not a non-trivial. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of another article isn't an argument for this one (although I will have a look at that AfD). Non-trivial is a measure of the depth of coverage - a newspaper article can easily be non-trivial, so long as there is enough information on the subject in question. In this case, there is. Trebor 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by notability? I thought we had the common definition that if something has multiple non-trivial sources, it is notable. What would assert notability? Trebor 16:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - There is a case for notability, and the BBC article fits the description of notability for non-trivial published worksin WP:N. If more sources can be found, I will consider a stronger position. 206.213.251.31 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another couple of minutes looking gave [6] and [7]. Trebor 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability shown per BBC, Daily Trojan, and Hispanic, three independent, reliable, nontrivial references. These are in addition to the political websites of leftist organizations, which count les for notability. Edison 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The BBC article and the minor references add up to enough points for me under my scoring system. Notability isn't subjective, it just having enough references for verifiability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 December 2006 (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.