Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Radical Face
The outcome of this request for deletion has not been decided yet.
Radical Face
- Radical Face (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request
Rus793 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not meet notability; sources include YouTube, blogs, social media. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
Discussion
- Delete per nom. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reluctant keep. The sources in our version of the article are not great, I'll grant. And there has been activity all around the multilingual Wikipedia world in the last month, perhaps because of some release activity? But the articles in enwiki, frwiki and dewiki all date to 2012 or earlier, and the subject of the article has ID numbers in a lot of the authority control sources. So I'm a little reluctant to jump to the conclusion that the subject is not notable. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Remember, it's not about publicity, it's about what independent experts/critics in the field have to say. There is no real evidence here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep....for now. I did some digging and it almost looks like some of these pages were created or edited by the artist himself. My advice is to take it to AFD on En.wiki and see what they do. But as it stands, its been on multiple projects for many years. Otherwise I'd say delete it. Synergy 23:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- +The question is: is there cited and independent information supporting the article or not? What other wikis do is up to them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are verifiable sources that exist and are in the article. So I don't know exactly what you're questioning here. When I bring up En, I do so with the respect that if our parent encyclopedia has an article, we should too. I don't like defending such a crap article, but an article is still an article. Now, if we had an AfD from En with good rationale to delete, I'd probably side with that AfD. Until then, I'm still saying keep. Synergy 21:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the fact that it exists on multiple wiki's doesn't mean anything at all? So if we were the only people who just refused to have this article, whats that say? :) Synergy 21:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- IMO, the fact that it exists on multiple wikis (and has for a while) matters. It's true that different wikis have different notability standards to some extent. But they all do have notability standards, and requirements for reliable sources, even if they differ. So if an article exists in one or two places, and those articles are new, it may not mean anything. But if the article exists in a dozen places and has been around for five years, that must be taken into consideration. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are some subtle but important differences in notability standards from project to project. For example, at Enwiki there are two clauses that differ from our own guidelines. First: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Then it adds "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. To demonstrate notability here we ask that "significant coverage" be shown by the use of several reliable secondary sources. So a subject may meet the notability guidelines at Enwiki but not here. There is also the problem in that another wiki may have a guideline, but may not follow it. So the question remains, in its present state is this a notable article per our guidelines? User:Rus793 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- When exactly did this project change its standard guideline for notability? As long as I've been here, we were strictly inline with En.wiki. 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are some subtle but important differences in notability standards from project to project. For example, at Enwiki there are two clauses that differ from our own guidelines. First: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Then it adds "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. To demonstrate notability here we ask that "significant coverage" be shown by the use of several reliable secondary sources. So a subject may meet the notability guidelines at Enwiki but not here. There is also the problem in that another wiki may have a guideline, but may not follow it. So the question remains, in its present state is this a notable article per our guidelines? User:Rus793 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- IMO, the fact that it exists on multiple wikis (and has for a while) matters. It's true that different wikis have different notability standards to some extent. But they all do have notability standards, and requirements for reliable sources, even if they differ. So if an article exists in one or two places, and those articles are new, it may not mean anything. But if the article exists in a dozen places and has been around for five years, that must be taken into consideration. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the fact that it exists on multiple wiki's doesn't mean anything at all? So if we were the only people who just refused to have this article, whats that say? :) Synergy 21:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are verifiable sources that exist and are in the article. So I don't know exactly what you're questioning here. When I bring up En, I do so with the respect that if our parent encyclopedia has an article, we should too. I don't like defending such a crap article, but an article is still an article. Now, if we had an AfD from En with good rationale to delete, I'd probably side with that AfD. Until then, I'm still saying keep. Synergy 21:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This request is due to close on 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.