Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alonsomania


 * 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   merge to Fernando Alonso.  MBisanz  talk 07:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Alonsomania

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although article contains sources, I don't think this "fanbase" is notable enough for its own page even if there are some RS. I guess a merge to Fernando Alonso is possible... other than that, delete. D.M.N. (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why not raise this at Talk:Fernando Alonso, and if a merge consensus is not forthcoming, bring it here? Rather than delete, and maybe merge? Deletion should be the last option considered. Aptery  gial  09:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - seems to have some decent sources. It's a short article going to stay short, but seems acceptable quality-wise. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 09:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge parts delete most - The first little bit about his influence on F1 in spain is probably worth merging in but most of the article is about how there were parties when he won. Really? No shit. Are we going to have it in the Man Utd article about all the parties that go on each time they win a league or a cup? People win, people celebrate, this is not notable. It is just what fans do. Short of the fans getting into such a frenzy they loot the town or end up in a giant suicide pact or engage in a massive orgy, it really isn't notable. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's mostly about his fans having parties. That is not at all notable. The only bit that is worth keeping is that his success has fueled an increase in viewers in Spain, which should be mentioned in Fernando Alonso rather than in a spin-off article. Readro (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Partial merge, delete - The affect his success had on the sport's success & 'visibility' in Spain is probably worth a mention in Alonso's article. Otherwise there's nothing really worth keeping. Every (successful) F1 driver has a fan club. Every (successful) sports team/person does. Every popular band/singer/celebrity does. The article tells little that isn't already covered in the general Fan (person) article. AlexJ (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When this came up at Proposed Deletion, I looked for sources. What I mostly found were sources that used this name as a headline or as an attention-grabber, nothing more.  The subject that they actually talked about was Fernando Alonso.  They didn't define, or discuss, a distinct subject of "Alonsomania".  This and this are examples of sources that do exactly that. This simply observes that Spanish newspapers use the name. It seems, from what is available in sources, that there should be a redirect here, since its an alternative name for the subject that is clearly in use, but that there's no distinct subject to be had.  This at most is a paragraph, perhaps two, in the article about the person.  (Subtract the duplication of the biography from this article, and that's pretty much the amount that one has left.) Put another way:  Per User:Uncle G/On notability, no source documents this subject in depth.  All sources simply discuss it briefly and tangentially (a couple of sentences at most) in the context of Alonso himself.  So, too, therefore, should Wikipedia.  Wikipedia should do as the sources do.  And per the notability guidelines, therefore, since independent sources exist, but they don't document the subject in depth, redirection or merger into an article with a broader subject is the answer. Of course, deletion isn't necessary for merger.  Even an editor without an account can perform a merger.  There's no reason to waste the effort that  has put in to making the few sentences verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge in entirety - I would argue, however, that the reason this is worth its own page is because merging may be too much to merge over. I also believe this is a term that was widely used circa 2005 and not just a media buzzword. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources in general don't prove notability, they are merely required to assert notability. Are we really arguing here that fans liking it when their person wins is a ntoable or unique event? That there is too much on this page is fairly easy to sort out. You just merge the notable bits and cut out the dross. Narson&#39;sPetFerret (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2009 (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.