Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ozello Shrimper

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. --Coredesat 04:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ozello Shrimper

The Ozello Shrimper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable invention ("the Ozello Shrimper has never been mass commercialized.") Alksub 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources giving coverage are found Corpx 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn and trivial. Leibniz 13:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Taking the definition of Notability from Wikipedia - Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below......

Note that all requirements listed in the aforementioned "guideline below" are present in this article. The contention in this case is whether "the number and nature of reliable sources needed" are adequate. It is my opinion that "given the substantial depth of coverage and quality of the source..." provided (Florida Sportsman) and the existence of other documentable though not currently included sources (The St. Petersburg Times articles), this invention, while certainly not "famous", "important" or "popular" is certainly "notable" and any objections to its notability are therefore unfounded.

Arguments to the effect that the invention is "trivial" are certainly unfounded given the depth of coverage afforded to it in the aforementioned expose by a leading State level magazine dedicated to saltwater fishing in the largest sport fishing state in the United States. If we accept the Wikipedia definition of Trivia, TRV we can clearly see that the documentation provided isn't miscellaneous or unfocused and that it is in fact a cohesive article related to a singular topic. While integration with appropriate categories is far from complete, it certainly isn't impossible or unforeable once the appropriate categorizations and their related information are finished. Spaatz 15:03, 27 August 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.