Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlatHicks

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. We do not, as a general rule, maintain many articles on cardboard cutouts of persons. Herostratus 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FlatHicks

FlatHicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original nominator's comments: Not notable. A cardboard cutout used at a conference. Probably qualifies for speedy delete. --SueHay 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not notable. A cardboard cutout used at a conference. Probably qualifies for speedy delete. --SueHay 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable, well-documented cardboard cutout. Many independent references. --Eastmain 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep – Looks notable to me with over 19,000 Google hits. What is even more interesting is that his inclusion in Wikipedia seems to have added to this notoriety. Shoessss 00:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question I've been noticing that with other articles on obscure subjects. Why does it happen? Google seems to get skewed when an article is created in Wikipedia, but I don't know why. Can you help me understand this? --SueHay 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is the numerous sites that mirror Wikipedia's contents. Since there's so many of them, it skews a subject's number of Google hits. Speaking of which...

• Delete. The subject of the article doesn't appear to be covered in reliable sources, the primary notability criterion. Filtering out Wikipedia mirrors from the Google search gets only 1050 hits, most of them being blogs and Flickr photos. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not the best article in the world, but a documented meme of some significance. Less notable memes are in Wikipedia right now. --D Wilbanks 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please look at this article's history. The non-notable blogs and Flickr photos that NeoChaosX found in Google were the basis for creating multiple wiki users to provide the "independent" references for this cardboard cutout. --SueHay 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The arrticle does not assert the notability of its subject. It barely slides by CSD A1 for context. The links do not establish notability and the article doesn't explain the importance of this cardboard cutout. --Strangerer (Talk) 03:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per NeoChaosX and Strangerer. Cannot find reliable source PeaceNT 15:16, 15 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.