Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stern Fan Network
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 delete. fishhead64 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stern Fan Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable fansite bulletin board. No outside independent reliable sources given to prove notability. Only links are to its own forum pages. Page full of fancruft for the BB members, contributing nothing of value for an encyclopedia. —Ocatecir Talk 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my nomination above. —Ocatecir Talk 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic, non notable, and there are no reliable sources for the article and little chance of finding them. Message board posts generally are not WP:RS. Perhaps even more so for this particular forum. El hombre de haha 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Fails WP:WEB in not having any citations aside from threads on the site itself. Redirect to (The Howard Stern Show, Super Fan Roundtable or Howard 100 and Howard 101) per WP:WEB#_note-1, site in and of itself is not notable, but primary subjects of site are. Weak because this feels like possible over-reaction to end edit warring on pages generated by these sites. Argument could also be made as it could for most radio fan sites that they had on air mentions, constituting distribution independent of the site. But those are very difficult to find verifiable sources on, and most likely only constitute trivial coverage - Optigan13 05:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per above and nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--there is a reliable UPI article which mentions it, as well as many references at what I believe is the official website, though filters here at work won't let me view that. There are also many other references, and I'd guess that someone more vested than I in keeping the article could pick through and find the reliable ones. Matchups 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that source constitutes trivial coverage as it only describes that members of the board have given death threats and says nothing about the notability of the board. If death threats lent notability to a message board almost every BB would have an article on wikipedia as they are pretty common due to the ability to remain anonymous on the internet. —Ocatecir Talk 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition of trivial coverage is fairly clear as to what "trivial" means--basically directory content. This article, though minimally substantial, is substantial. A source does not need to state explicitly that an entity is notable--it is the existence of the source which makes the entity notable. Matchups 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am wondering if that also makes the article's subject Chaunce Hayden notable, since he received the death threats. I am also wondering what this UPI article could be a source for, outside of "somebody threatened somebody else." I'm not convinced this proves notability, but if it does, it is of little use to the article. El hombre de haha 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ResponseFootnote 5 mentions that trivial coverage includes passing mentions in newspaper articles. That article is not about Stern Fan Network, it is about death threats, therefore it does not qualify as a source. Independent coverage does not mean simply being mentioned, it means being written about. —Ocatecir Talk 00:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition of trivial coverage is fairly clear as to what "trivial" means--basically directory content. This article, though minimally substantial, is substantial. A source does not need to state explicitly that an entity is notable--it is the existence of the source which makes the entity notable. Matchups 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The Toronto Sun mentions the website here, but only in passing. Not enough independent coverage to establish notability. UnfriendlyFire 00:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.