Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Never Wore Her Safety Goggles


 * 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. No significant coverage in reliable sources; facebook is not a reliable source. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Carol Never Wore Her Safety Goggles

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While the poster is interesting, it does not appear to meet Notability standards. There is not a single external source referenced in this article, and a quick Google search did not yield any suitable results. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, although the image may be kept to illustrate the company article or an article on safety poster. Despite the memey-ness it doesn't appear to pass WP:N at this point and much of the article (esp. "analysis") is WP:OR. (Also, this or very similar posters predate 2003 by some time.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject seems sufficiently notable and the article should be given plenty of time to establish this. Colonel Warden 06:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What, specifically, establishes this topic's notability? —Remember the dot (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article references Facebook as a primary source which I have verified. Colonel Warden 09:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Facebook is hardly what I'd call a reliable source. shoy  13:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless notability is shown using reliable sources (not Facebook!). --Itub 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Itub. Google News produces one result, which looks more like a passing mention. Article's content entirely unsourced. Huon 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable cultural item, up in thousands of classrooms across America. It also has significant grassroots attention, enough to make it a budding meme in my book. -- The_socialist talk? 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's definition of notability is that multiple reliable 3rd-party sources have written about it. This article does not have a single source or reference, let alone multiple reliable 3rd-party references. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, just as important as the classic resume "but I am not a dancer", pop-culture fame.JJJ999 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have an article on but I am not a dancer. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I misquoted... I meant the essay done by this guy,which I will add right now. The guy is here though, and this is the only thing he ever did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Gallagher_%28humorist%29 JJJ999 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, point stands. Keep it.JJJ999 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that we have an article on Hugh Gallagher (humorist) but not one on Hugh Gallagher's 'College Essay'. This would be similar to writing an article on Flinn Scientific, Inc. (including a short discussion of the Carol poster) and deleting the article Carol Never Wore Her Safety Goggles. —Remember the dot (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Spammy article about a safety poster a company gave to schools. No independent and reliable references with substantial coverage, so fails WP:N. Edison 05:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's been up since May, and still not a hint of a reliable source. Fails WP:V, viz "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Appears to be mostly original research with some material from a single dubious source (Facebook) thrown in. Wikipedia is not for budding memes which may or may not become notable one day (WP:CRYSTAL). No prejudice to recreation as a properly sourced article if it ever does. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 15:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unsourced. Facebook is not a reliable source, sorry. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given you had it speedied before I could edit the page, you'll have to excuse me if I ignore that line of reasoning... additionally the delete was for copyright, not notability, and when I get time I will put the page up again. reiterate my keep.JJJ999 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had it speedied? I don't see anything by this title in my deletion log. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not you Gamaliel...JJJ999 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your indenting beneath my comment seemed to indicate that it was directed at me. Sorry about the confusion. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous references to this poster in a Google search. From comments above, it seems to be quite widely distributed and notorious (is this the same as notable?!).  The article could probably be significantly improved though... -- MightyWarrior 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has yet found a reliable source that has a discussion of this poster. Yes, it's widely distributed and notorious, but it has not received sufficient coverage by 3rd parties to be notable. You may have noticed that the article is entirely unsourced because no one has found any reliable sources to back it up. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Notorious is not the same as notable. From WP:N: "This concept [notability] is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination. LOL, Facebook as a reliable source?  What's next, Usenet???   Bur nt sau ce  17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Hardly worth keeping such poorly based article, there are enough wiki sites on the internet for memes without having to fill wikipedia with such nonsense --King_DeaN | Talk 03:11, 1 October 2007 (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.