Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where's Willy?

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 keep. PeaceNT 00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Willy? & Where's George?

Where's Willy? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Where's George? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Both Where's Willy? and Where's George? have been tagged with notability. I don't necessarily want to see them deleted, but I want the question settled. GreenJoe 18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I looked through the article and seems well-written and is slightly notable, for now I am just voting weak keep. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Per above, and if the author gets refs for the page, would be perfectly fine (I think). •Malinaccier• ^T/C 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is notable and even their website lists articles written about them here. Acidskater 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. NY Times and other clips on their site are legit sources. It is notable, as "recreation" or "hobby" (think coin collecting) as described by the Times and the site's creator; CBC article -- about Where's Willy -- says it's inspired others "WheresGeorge.com has also inspired internet tracking of other objects such as disposable cameras at PhotoTag.org and books at BookCrossing.com" [1] Canuckle 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Finally found sources for scientists describing in the journal Nature how they used the game's site to research transmission of communicable diseases like SARS or influenza CBC, Australian 24news.com.

and the link to the Nature article is already the last line of the George article. d'oh! Canuckle 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I started adding some references, including the pandemic study. The trend and site is notable, though more references to that effect are needed. ( I am the originator of the article) -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Willy, keep george well written doesn't establish notability. The where's willy article includes 2 external sources. One requires payment, and the other doesn't make where's willy the focus of the article. George on the other hand has an established reference sections which shows independent non-trivial coverage in which its the focus of many articles.--Crossmr 22:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Where's Willy? has its own listing of being in the news here, but it is definitely not as long as Where's George? Acidskater 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Delete Willy just because the Toronto Sun story about it has now entered into their archive and so requires a payment to view? That means the newspaper article Tracking Willy could be de-linked per WP:EL but it doesn't mean that the reliable source no longer exists. Someone with Lexus Nexus could check that story and I expect could find others. At best, you should be advocating Merge, not Delete. Canuckle 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the toronto sun was wholly about willy (which can't be easily verified) its a single source of non-trivial coverage in which its the focus of the article. A single source doesn't meet notability. As far as Where's Willy news section every link outside of the directories is dead. If we can't easily establish the notability of a website, it doesn't belong here. --Crossmr 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well above I did point out a CBC story Where's Willy so that's 2 ... Canuckle 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's 1. The Toronto Sun story can't be easily verified by any editor. If we're relying on archived news story that require money to establish notability, I don't really think thats in the spirit of notability. Any editor should be able to show up, check the references for themselves and easily find evidence of notability. If they have to take someone else's word on whether or not article X is really about the subject, I don't think that really cuts it.--Crossmr 12:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So if an article cites a book that is rare and not in every public library, it doesn't count as a source, as not every editor can look at it. Something need not be on the web to be a reliable source, the newspaper is one of the major dailies of Canada's largest city, the microfilms will be in public libraries thus available beyond the pay archive.198.163.55.72 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — 198.163.55.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It can be used as a citation, but it can be questioned if an editor doubts it and no one can manage to verify it. However this isn't a subject that should be that obscure. its a website. not a historical curiosity covered in old dusty books. If a website is truly notable there should be current and readily available evidence of that.--Crossmr 01:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep George since it has been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources (like [2], and even adjacent coverage in in [3]. I'm not sure about the Willy site, but I'll say it should be at least merged/redirected since the sites are affiliated. FrozenPurpleCube 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WheresGeorge (I haven't checked out the WheresWilly article), for the reasons gone into above. More third party references could be added ad nauseum, though the redundancy would add little to the article. Note that the article and discussion goes into some depth, too, in discussion of the legal ramifications of "Georging" (and otherwise handling) bills. It's a phenomenon that seems around to stay. I'm not clear on GreenJoe's reasons for questioning the article. If, as GJ originally posted, his reason is notability, I do not see why the current article fails to meet guidelines under WP:Notability. Perhaps GreenJoe could explain in more detail why the article causes him concern; this would make it easier to address here. I might also mention that the issue of notability had been discussed on the WheresGeorge discussion page in the past. Xenophon777 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both per Canuckle. --Paul Erik 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Canuckle. --Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yet the notability of Willy specifically hasn't been demonstrated. A single verifiable article which puts willy as the focus doesn't let it pass notability.--Crossmr 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  I may have given the impression that I had not read your responses to Canuckle above. Sorry about that. We might need to agree to disagree on this. I am not as quick to dismiss the Toronto Sun article as you are. I think the headline "Tracking Willy: From strip clubs to drug deal, website gives currency history" makes it pretty clear that this is an article that features the website prominently, not non-trivial coverage. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" notes, If the link was merely a "convenience link" to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, it is acceptable to drop the link but keep the citation. I think it is fine to rely on it as a citation establishing notability, especially when the headline makes it as clear as it does. So that, in combination with the CBC story, the somewhat-trivial-but-not-completely-non-trivial references in USA Today and the Montreal Mirror, and the obvious notability of Where's George—none of these alone would be convincing, but taken together they have convinced me that Where's Willy is a notable enough topic for Wikpedia. --Paul Erik 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Where's George is a very useful site.Bellczar 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Where's George: The article is notable. Ekrenor 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not have a requirement that we source exclusively to free online databases of media content. We can source to non-web newspapers or magazines. We can source to books. We can source to paid newspaper archives. We can source to radio or television interviews. The only requirements are (a) that the source exists, and (b) that it can be verified. A source does not become invalid just because you can't personally access it — if somebody can, then that's enough. Accordingly, the Toronto Sun article remains a valid source. Keep both. Bearcat 22:53, 16 August 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.