Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowzilla (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The most relevant argument for deletion is probably WP:NOT#NEWS, for this is mostly a "fun news" story, albeit one that has been recurring for a few years. This argument has a great deal of merit, and indeed my personal view is that the subject does not pass the WP:EVENT criteria, for I think a stories like this fall into the category of "stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories,". But that is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast policy. The verifiability requirements are met, and with a significant portion of the participants arguing that the recurring nature of subject, as documented by Arxiloxos, is sufficiently enduring, I have no choice but to declare that there is no consensus here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowzilla

edit
AfDs for this article:
Snowzilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD exists) Reason given in PROD was: No reliable sources. No claim to notability. BLP concern related to Billy Powers. At best a local news item in a small town, if it is not a hoax. Illia Connell (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Do we have any standards? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete An absolute failure on the notability scale. A big snowman that gets mentioned as the "joke/light" news elsewhere is not worthy, and serves to demean the residents of the community rather than be a serious article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1) Re: nom's mention of BLP concerns - as was previously mentioned on the talk page, Google Street View clean avoids that whole block. Never mind that it's not really so hard to find the damn thing anyway (two blocks away from where I lived for much of the 1990s), which revists the question "If the real information is elsewhere, then what do I need Wikipedia for?" that I've asked too many times and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer for. 2) I would presume lasting significance to be one of the measuring sticks for an article to remain a part of the encyclopedia. Billy Ray Powers ran for mayor of Anchorage in response to all the publicity he received. As viewed here, Powers received all of 133 votes (0.23%) out of over 58,000 cast for his trouble. Not what I would consider lasting significance. Now, as for Bwilkins's comment, compare this with another Anchorage-related article, that of the Anchorage Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. While AUUF can perhaps claim independent notability, the article really fails to convey that. Instead, the article was created to rehash the national headlines the congregation received once upon a time for about five minutes, over a practice which they had customarily carried out for decades anyway. And there the article continues to sit in essentially that same state, nearly five years later. Bet that if I AfD'ed it, "a mob" would show up to defend the article from deletion, yet these same editors wouldn't lift a finger to actually improve the article. Seen it with too many AfDs already. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Snowman#World's largest snowman which could use some more examples of large snowmen. The Guinness Book of Records tracks this and the previous record holder, Angus, had the following impressive stats:
  • Height 113 ft. & 7 inches tall
  • 9,000,000 lbs
  • 200,000 cubic feet of snow
  • 4 ft. wreathes as eyes
  • 6 ft. of chicken wire & muslin for the carrot nose
  • 6 automobile tires as the mouth
  • 20 ft. fleece hat
  • 120 ft. fleece scarf
  • 3 skidder tires for the buttons
  • 2 – 10 ft. trees for arms

Warden (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep  Passes the WP:GNG and WP:N.  WP:GNG does not discriminate based on the nature of the topic.  It is the Seattle Times, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, etc., that identify this topic as being worthy of attention.  The other issue is whether or not the topic fails WP:NOT.  As far as it being indiscriminate info, I don't see any complaints here that we already have too many articles about Alaskan artwork that has attracted sufficient attention over a period of years so as to be declared a public nuisance.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Suggestion to improve article: add photos of Snowzilla. It would add to the credibility of the topic.--Jvanek01 (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already tried. I couldn't find anything available under the appropriate license. I haven't heard anything about its current status, but it's been a number of years since I've had any reason to fly or drive to Anchorage on the spur of the moment in the middle of winter. Therefore, if they're still building it, I need a better reason to go there than just to get a photo. Since much of nothing has been spoken of its current status, it may require something approaching real work to figure things out should I happen to have reason/opportunity to travel there. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 07:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the sources Arxiloxos listed, except perhaps for the Charlotte Observer (which 404s), are in-depth and reliable, and as a result any two would reach WP:GNG. I'm suspicious of the applicability of WP:EVENT, but continuing coverage over years, and geographical scope are evidenced by that range of sources as well. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't say I'm impressed with the article, but it meets the guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Snowzilla_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140202470"