Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Showering French Yak

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Showering French Yak

Doesn't meet criteria of WP:MUSIC Geni 00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Agreed, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. I had flagged it for cleanup hoping for more info from the contributors but haven't seen any. Samw 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC--MONGO 05:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MONGO - FrancisTyers 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:MUSIC is 'not policy' (direct quote from the page), and is little more than a POV notability standard. I stand by WP:NPOV Cynical 20:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So why do you think this article should be kept?Geni 20:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Cynical, just because people state that a subject fails to meet WP:NMG it does not necessarily mean they think it's policy. I think many, including myself, refer to it as a valid "measuring stick" and a sensible set of guidelines. PJM 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't meet criteria of WP:MUSIC, but come on. Should something be deleted because it is less than well-known? The advantage that Wikipedia has over other informational sources is the fact that it can be made to include more or less anything that exists. I think that the entire policy of WP:MUSIC concerning how well-known artists are is nit-picking pettiness. The quality of this article is higher than a lot I can think of, and the information presented is genuine. Therefore, I argue it is worth keeping. arevolvingonob 13:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a photo and considerably more information than was previously present. arevolvingonob 13:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Notabiity aside, can this info be verified? Are there published, primary sources for this information or is it merely first hand reporting? Samw 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's first-hand reporting. If you would like me to publish a book on the subject, you are more than welcome to use me as a source on a page you make. arevolvingonob 18:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. Wikipedia policy unfortunately excludes first-hand reporting: Wikipedia:No original research and instead asks for verifiable sources. Independent of whether the subject meets WP:MUSIC criteria, facts asserted in the article that are not independently verifiable may be deleted. Samw 02:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Touché. When you've deleted the 56,879 other first-hand Wikipedia reports, tell me and I'll take the SFY one down. Merry Christmas. arevolvingonob 00:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not independently verified at this time, and not meeting WP:NMG anyway. Stifle 12:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (and if you have a list of the other 56,879 primary research articles, bring it on, they can be discussed here too... I suspect there aren't QUITE that many). ++Lar 15:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I'll say as my final defense: Wikipedia is a site that supposedly prides itself as a source for information and as a truly democratic medium of sharing information. What is presented on the SFY page is wholly true, wholly unbiased, and presented in an intelligent (if I do say so myself) manner, which is more than can be said for plenty of other sites. If you people are going to spend your entire lives searching for pages on this site to delete and edit, why not delete or edit the poorly-written and misleading pages that exist in abundance here. As some people on this site are fond of saying, "Wiki is not paper." There is no size limit to this site, nor should there be. Anything true (as the page in question is) should be welcome here. Happy Kwanzaa. arevolvingonob 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

While notabilty is debatable, verifiability is not; see: Wikipedia:Verifiability. True facts, unless verifiable, cannot be added to Wikipedia. Samw 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. My arguments have been satisfactorily (I don't think that's a word) refuted. The page doesn't meet verifiability standards. Happy Hanukkah. arevolvingonob 16:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a word. [1]. Kudos. ;) PJM 22:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Do what you need to do, I don't believe it's hurting anything by remaining on the site. I say keep it, but maybe I'm biased, I made the page. I'll save the content and see if I can resubmit it so that it undeniably meets Wikipedia standards, to be truthful I haven't yet had the time. Sorry if I hurt someone's feelings. Mankind716

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.