Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Be: Emo
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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How to Be: Emo
Video doesn't appear to be notable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the only notable source is a short item on the blog of the Bakersfield Chronicle. If this had appeared in the paper itself, it would count as one independent source towards notability. Even then it at least one more similar source would be needed. As it stands this article clearly does not meet our notability criteria. Gwernol 01:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I was the first to nominate the page for deletion oh so many months ago. The consensus at the end was that there was no consensus, with many "keep" votes placing their faith in the eventual "full length" feature version of the film, coverage in a magazine that was eventually going to be published, and the aforementioned Chronicle article. Neither the full-length feature nor the full-print article have surfaced, and, as the edit history will reveal, no one can seem to find anything of value to be said about the movie. A Google search for '"How to Be Emo" film -wikipedia" provides 13,200 resutls, but a look at the first ten reveals the film's self-promotional material, YouTube/GoogleVideo, and message board posts. Sliding futher down the line uncovers a few blogs, more self-promotion, and more message boards before dissolving into a pool of the unrelated. This is a non-notable film by a non-notable artist, and the evidence promised hasn't surfaced. Lets get it right this time. Consequentially 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per Consequentially --Fredrick day 16:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- CommentFrom what I saw on the first AfD was a clear consensus for delete. No clue why it wasn't closed as such. Especially with keep votes like "Keep. I've heard about it." --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Newly added source, SuicideGirls*Japan. If it's not notable I'm not sure how the Japanese have heard about it. Regardless, this new source should definitively meet the guidelines for Notability(web). This article isn't about the feature film, just references it, so web is the appropriate category. TIinPA 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think "the Japanese have heard of it" is sufficient to establish notability. What is sufficient is if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Depending on how generous we are, you have somewhere between zero and three: Danielle Belton's blog, Elites TV's review, and SG Japan's feature(?). It also seems that these may well be the only three sources in existence. Are any of these good enough? Are two or three works "multiple"? I guess we'll see. — The Storm Surfer 04:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The inclusion of another source -- especially when prompted by an AfD -- is nice, but I still feel that the article falls short of demonstrating notability. Especially with web content, which by definition should breed scads of independent press given the ease with which one can access it, three tenuous sources does not a convincing argument make. Other web phenomenon included present numerous (certainly more than three) references and include major mainstream publications. The notability criterion for web items demonstrates this: the examples of "independent converage" include U.S. News and World Report, Playboy, The Guardian, Wired, and other reputable, well-known, independent sources. That the sources you offer seem to rehash the same few facts and share the same taglines implies collusion to me, or at least a degree of similarity that would lessen their weight in an argument about inclusion in the encyclopedia. The blog does not merit inclusion, as blogs are explicitly mentioned in the "don't use me" column when it comes to notability. That leaves us with SGJ and Elites.TV. I'll look into those two insofar as their quality as a reference, but that still leaves a lot to be desired. Two sources for web content? Are we kidding ourselves? Consequentially 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think "the Japanese have heard of it" is sufficient to establish notability. What is sufficient is if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Depending on how generous we are, you have somewhere between zero and three: Danielle Belton's blog, Elites TV's review, and SG Japan's feature(?). It also seems that these may well be the only three sources in existence. Are any of these good enough? Are two or three works "multiple"? I guess we'll see. — The Storm Surfer 04:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
