Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pollyfilla

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 no consensus. —Kurykh 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pollyfilla

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

non notable, no sources Kripto 00:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete/Prod, article doesn't exactly make sense either (based on article text, is this an 8-year old?) --Sigma 7 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think "conceived" in this sense means the character or alter ego. Keep BTW. Multiple sources describe her as a "drag fetish icon", including the mayor of Wellington, NZ.--Ispy1981 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
what does 'drag fetish icon' even mean? Does this mean that the myor has a drag fetish? Does it matter if there's no article about drag fetishism in wikipedia? Kripto 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't matter whether Wikipedia has an article on something. Wikipedia is not complete. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Sorry, I misspoke. The mayor referred to her as a "Wellington" icon. Other sources refer to her as a "drag fetish icon". I'm no expert, but I think that is Kiwi (New Zealander) for an icon in the world of drag queens.--Ispy1981 03:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please add some of those sources to the article? ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply I have added a few sources, an interview with her for a New Zealand gay magazine for example, and the ref to where the mayor, Kerry Prendergast, referred to her as a "Wellington icon". I'm hesitant to add this, but it also seems as though she has won the Wellington Cup (not the horseracing one) for fashion several times as well as the Glammies. As I said, I'm no expert on the subject, but if we could get a representative of the LGBT community to verify if they are notable or not, I could gauge whether or not to include them.--Ispy1981 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, notability is hinted at but most mentions of him/her/it are only in passing, or on forums and blogs. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 07:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article is better, and could pass as a stub. However, notability is quite weak. --Sigma 7 08:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The external links contain enough non-trivial coverage to suggest sufficient notability. Adrian M. H. 14:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Did some searching of my own and she seems non-notable. Coverage is incidental at best. Also, I'd expect Polyfilla to be the putty, but obviously we don't have a redirect for it. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regional performer at best, not well known outside local area.Ryoung122 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not well know out of local area. Oysterguitarist 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a person of local notability at best. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Redirect to Spackling paste (after "Polyfilla") Ohconfucius 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable in New Zealand, which is all that counts to make this subject notable. Boy do I get tired of hearing the spurious argument of "not well known outside of local area." The fact that a figure is not well-known outside his/her locality does not disqualify them under notability guidelines: see WP:IDONTKNOWIT which reads Some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connect nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.. The real notability criteria for bios are at WP:BIO, and this article meets them. Article mainly needs expansion and better sourcing. --Ace of Swords 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've done some clean up of references (mainly to add complete bibliographic info) and added biographical information contained in one of those articles. Which material makes it even clearer that this person meets WP:BIO, in my mind. May the closing admin heed Wikipedia policy per this article, rather than simple votes based on lack of understanding of what notablity is ("if it's not notable outside NZ, it must not be notable"). Gee, I'm not a Kiwi myself, but that doesn't mean Kiwi topics aren't notable! --Ace of Swords 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment New Zealand IS a big country and it's not as though she's only notable in Upper West North Central New Zealand. This is en wikipedia, which should encompass all aspects of English-speaking culture. As to the suggestion to redirect to spackling paste, you're joking, right?--Ispy1981 20:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources cited are sufficient to establish that article subject meets WP:BIO criterion of "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Groupthink 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pollyfilla is well known around the whole of New Zealand as one of the country's most prolific and popular drag entertainers and has been active in the LGBT community for most of the past decade. Enzedbrit 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the article could use some copyediting for tone and style, in its current form it's suitably well-referenced to establish notability. There should be an italicized disambiguation link on the page for spackling paste or for the correct terminology of the item referenced here. Eliz81 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. An italicized disambig link was put on this article several days ago; [see diff. --Ace of Swords 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Noted, comment stricken. Eliz81 19:12, 13 July 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.