Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Where Are Your Keys?"


 * 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Where Are Your Keys?"

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no evidence that this is a notable subject, not yet anyway. The references in the article are not from reliable sources, and many of them are really just mentions. The most reliable thing I could find is this, which isn't much. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regretful weak delete . I find this subject fascinating, but I have to agree that it hasn't quite seen the level of coverage in sources that Wikipedia considers reliable that would enable it to pass the general notability guideline. If there was one good solid source there, I could be persuaded, but until then I think the article probably needs to go. This one might be a candidate to move to Teflpedia, which doesn't worry about notability and which is also licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree re:interesting subject. One wonders though, and it's hard to gauge, to which extent it's a gimmick. Can you eat glass? Drmies (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's a good one! Their Japanese version of "can you eat glass" sounds pretty strange though, sort of like a robot... I can imagine that people would think you were insane if you said that, but I'm not sure they would think you were a native speaker. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak keep. Cnilep has me convinced about North Shore News and Straight.com (but not about the National Centre for First Nations Governance). — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. At least three of the sources cited appear to be reliable, though not above reproach. North Shore News is a newspaper, and it even publishes corrections, one of the tests of reliability suggested at WP:NEWSORG. Straight.com is part of a group of newspapers. That group is self-described as an "alternative to conservative daily newspapers" and straight.com does not appear to publish corrections, but its oldest paper (Georgia Straight) has been published since 1967 and members of the group have apparently won awards including a Best Documentary award for Canadian television programing (all of this per the organization's own claims). The National Centre for First Nations Governance is an NGO largely funded by the Canadian federal government. It is not independent of Kutenai or Mohawk nations, but is independent of 'Where are your keys?'. This is perhaps borderline, but I think the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Cnilep (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is not only well referenced and notable, but actually important. But whenever someone has set themselves up with the lofty attitude that "no sources whatsoever on topic xyz can ever be considered reliable", that's an impossible standard to satisfy. Ignore them and try to work with the editors who are more down to earth.  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most of the references are to blogs, so it's not accurate to call the article "well-referenced". — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Obviously editors have taken great pains to cite this article and establish its notability, which they have done successfully. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Strong Keep: This is an important topic in the preservation of Native languages, for which is IS difficult to find the kind of sources wiki prefers and often source material in this area is more informal than is ideal.  However, notability is established, the sources are adequate, and the "these people don't exist anymore and are invisible except for my great-grandmother" problem on Native American articles about modern people generally is something that needs to go away.   Montanabw (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this is a borderline case in which we loose nothing by defaulting to keep. It seems likely that the topic is very notable within the somewhat limited circle of peoples who work with revitalization of North American Indigenous languages - but this is the notability it should be judged on and that is satisfied by the sources presented.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The following refs are from WP:RS:
 * BoingBoing, which has been used in numerous tech articles as a ref.
 * Char-Koosta News is a tribal newspaper, and comparable to any local newspaper of a town or small city, with an editorial staff and a subscription base.
 * AILDI is a program of the University of Arizona, and reliable.
 * North Shore News is a tribal newspaper, and comparable to any local newspaper of a town or small city, with an editorial staff.
 * Spoken First is a publication of the Falmouth Institute, which provides education to Native American governments. It also publishes the American Indian Report, and both are reliable sources.
 * ChickasawTV is a video news outlet of the Chickasaw Nation, and is as reliable as any local government run cable channel.
 * Straight.com is the online home of Georgia Straight, published by the Vancouver Free Press, with a weekly readership of about 800K, and is a reliable source.
 * These references alone meet WP:GNG.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Tiggerjay (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2013 (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.