User talk:Oshaberi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dreadhead

A tag has been placed on Dreadhead, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. EMT1871 02:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as Dreadhead. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at this story where he is quoted: http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4837613

There is a reasonably defined notion of what is and is not encyclopedic, and this article fails to meet that requirement. There are thousands of media outlets in the US, most of them fill airtime, print pages, or their websites with content simply to meet a quota, not to provide any legitimate or worthwhile news. A fan of some team is quoted by some media outlet - so what? He's displayed on a JumboTron - why is that relevant? There is little encyclopedic merit in this topic.

If this explanation does not suffice for you, please bring the arti8cle's deletion to the attention of deletion review - if there is cause to restore it, it will be simply to slap an AFD on the article so that the broader community can determine whether or not to delete it.

Aside: asking me why I've yet to answer your question, when you gave me barely a day to do so, is insisting too much. I don't spend 24 hours a day on Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

MindMatrix has said more or less what I was going to say; your article doesn't meet the requirements in the guidelines linked above. Specifically, the article's subject is not notable. If you disagree and wish to take further action then please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review – Gurch 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's pure poppycock. As long as pages such as Eyeshield_21_characters exist, I will argue that the guidelines are comprimised at best. I can get full biographic material from the most minor of characters on any show or cartoon here. A real life person who is recognized by the team and fans is not worth mentioning when the NFL has it's own section honoring these kinds of fans in the NFL? As previously stated, the article DID MEET the requirements for inclusion stated by Wikipedia. What makes your opinion of what's valuable any more important than mine?

And the argument, "A fan of some team is quoted by some media outlet - so what? He's displayed on a JumboTron - why is that relevant? There is little encyclopedic merit in this topic." doesn't wash. MindMatrix has edited the article for Wild Strawberries (band). Frankly I have never heard of them. Does that limit their inclusion? Therefore, who cares? They've never charted, and they've added little to the musical landscape, yet you include them. Why? Cause their Canadian and close to your heart? At least Gurch's article Best of Both Worlds (song) charted.

Dreadhead is displayed on the "JumboTron" EVERY WEEK and in the team video. He is widely recognized by the crowd and the fans of a major NFL team. He's not just "some fan."

First, about the article on Wild Strawberries: it merits inclusion because there is a distinct and clear definition, per WP:MUSIC, of what bands should have an article in Wikipedia, and this band passes those criteria. Second, I think the biographic material of the cartoon characters et al should be deleted from Wikipedia too. Third, my opinion is no more or less important than yours or anybody else's, which is why I follow the guidelines and policies as closely as possible; sometimes, it doesn't make sense to do so, and some leeway for personal opinion is granted, but I use this sparingly.

As far as Dreadhead is concerned, it really amounts to an individual who is just part of the team's marketing campaign, and not much more. The Toronto Raptors, for instance, have SuperFan, who is generally similar to Dreadhead, though not sporting the team colours in quite the same fashion. It may merit a brief mention on the club's page (though I don't think so), but I certainly don't think it warrants its own article. Wikipedia isn't going to include everybody who has "15 minutes of fame". Perhaps it'd be best to start a discussion about this on the team's talk page, and move forward from there. Better yet, take this issue to deletion review as I suggested earlier. Mindmatrix 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition please?

Something you've never quite answered. you've never explained what an "inappropriate page" is other than quoting qualifications that the article meets.

ok listen, I havent answered you because honestly I havent cared enough to read your message until now. First, I did not delete your article. I proposed it for deletion and obviously the administrators agreed with me and deleted it. Second, if you read the tag, you had the ability to stop the deletion and cause a discussion about it, which obviously you chose not to do. I am no longer interested in discussing this with you. Any further postings on my Talkpage like your last one will be considered vandalism and reported as such. Thanks and have a nice day. EMT1871 02:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)