Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badlands Guardian


 * 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  MBisanz  talk 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Badlands Guardian

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

Article is about a geographical feature discovered by a small group of online Google Earth fans who said it looks like a person. Based upon edit history, the person who takes credit for this has editing the article. It seems to be strictly a vanity work... a page to discuss something this tiny group finds interesting but which they have failed to give any reason for why the rest of the world should care. I have tried to add tags about notability and requiring reliable sources (third party experts, not just links to their own site and minor "isn't that funny" news coverage in local media outlets, but such tags and edits to remove clearly unencyclopedic content has been immediately fully reverted by an anon IP account with no edit comment or rationale given on more than one occasion. I am not disputing that this got some minor mentions in local news briefly, or that someone in an online group thinks it is interesting, but the topic simply lacks any notability for an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep How is this not notable? It's got 9 unique, external references, plus a crystal clear Google Earth picture. And that "isn't that funny" news coverage you're talking about? That's a clear indication of notability. Notability is the noun form of notable, which is the ability to be noted. These news sources have noted them, so they're clearly notable (because they've been noted). flaminglawyerc 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very notable remarks. Duly noted. Dr.K. (logos) 18:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is derived from being worthy of being noted, not by the fact that is can be noted :D (Sorry, I'm a perfectionist)  Linguist At Large  20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they both apply here. But yeh, yours is technically the "correct" definition. flaminglawyerc 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: notability indicated via multiple non-trival media sources, including CBC, Sydney Morning Herald, and PCWorld. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Strong and Speedy Keep As per Flaming lawyer's and Jo7hs2's remarks and as per logic dictates. To elaborate: If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, PC World magazine, Sydney Morning Herald etc. can arbitrarily be dismissed as sources where does this end? We may have to delete 90% of Wikipedia's articles. Finally what experts are we looking for? Why do you have to be an expert to appreciate the uniqueness of this image? PCWorld magazine called it a geological marvel, the Sydney Morning Herald a net sensation. What more praise or notability do we need? If eminently reliable sources call something a marvel and a wonder, Wikpedia has to accept their verdict. Not doing so is WP:OR. Dr.K. (logos) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Identities of the original finders and editors are irrelevant. Their find has been publicized in media, and as long as wikipedia equals notability with media coverage, it has a place here. Comment Opponents may have a valid point discarding some of the sources as mere trivia sections reproduced in non-discrimating media (fill this page up, Jonesy boy...). But there is no acid test to tell which is which, so we should give the article the benefit of doubt. NVO (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The whole thing is kind of silly but no reason to delete an article because we think we are better, more serious people. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is sourced, establishing the notability of the subject.  Linguist At Large  20:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. As described above, this article satisfies the Wikipedia notability requirements and has verifiable sources. Truthanado (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2008 (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.