Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grogg

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The result was Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn with no other delete "votes". Stifle (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grogg

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

Minor product of a small souvenir manufacturer in Wales. Has some minor mentions in news media but does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep

I am trying to start a page on my hobby which is collecting Groggs. A Grog is a clay caricature made at John Hughes World of Groggs in Trefforest Pontypridd.

I am not having much luck with this as my page gets deleted as advertising or not being interesting enough so I am trying to find links to Grogg news articles to combat this. This is not easy however, as Grogg collecting is not really that news worthy and is hard to prove. There are probably only a few hundred serious Grogg collectors in the world. Although there are probably lots more people who own just one Grogg. They are very well known in the South Wales area and in Rugby circles.

The Grogg shop as it is known locally is a notable tourist attraction in Trefforest and has a small museum. this has been mentioned by another user on the Trefforest page on here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trefforest

Thanks.

Harris578 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • That is the main problem. Although interesting, the subject of an article needs to be WP:Verifiable through the use of WP:reliable, published sources to be included on Wikipedia. Until such sources become available, a free web hosting service may be more suited to your needs. -- saberwyn 11:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Most Grogg stories are carried by our local papers. The south wales echo, the Wales on Sunday, and the western mail. Are these good enough? They have an on-line presence in icwales. check this out this news article

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/sports/grassroots/cynon-valley-sport/2008/04/10/rugby-memory-of-model-professionals-91466-20735108/

and also this wikipedia page on the South Wales Echo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Wales_Echo

Thanks.

Harris578 (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sources: The Wikipedia articles are definitely not valid as sources. As for the news articles, they appear to pass the bar: if you can use them to prove the information in the article (see Wikipedia:Citing sources for some guidelines on how), the survival chances of this article will be improved. -- saberwyn 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have links to these news sources in my article. Please could someone help me change them into proper references. once I have seen it done I will be able to copy the format and do it myself. To be honest I find the help pages on here difficult to understand.

Harris578 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: Andrew's sources look sufficient to pass the verification bar.  RGTraynor  12:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I converted the html links to wiki citations, and based on the same it appears notable. Who knew? Xymmax (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very niche product for sure, but notable nonetheless as evidenced by the sourcing. Small production numbers don't make something non-notable in collection world, quite the opposite is usually true. Nice work Harris578. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Great point, Keeper--a Ford is no more notable than a Porsche, although the former's production is higher. Otherwise, the article is verifiable and has been covered in secondary sources which serves to establish notability. Lastly, the article is written in a concise NPOV manner. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your positive comments. I will work hard to make this page informative, accurate and interesting.

Harris578 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2008 (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.