Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flea Market Montgomery (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 23:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Flea Market Montgomery
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Literally all of the coverage (besides one very trivial mention from 2004) comes from a brief flurry between late 2006 and early 2007 briefly brought both the flea market and video to attention. As proven in the past, a very brief flurry of news coverage doesn't mean long-term notability. There has been absolutely no coverage since the last AFD in 2008, which was closed as "no consensus" after only one week. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the coverage in WP:RS cited meets WP:GNG; notability is permanent. Andrea105 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The coverage of this subject seems to exceed, in both quantity and duration, the "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that would run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Andrea105 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a flash-in-the-pan flurry of notability for the owner doesn't really lead to lingering fame for the business itself, to my eyes; sure, the owner was on some high-profile TV shows, but since then there's been nothing at all. I know we don't have a "one event" corollary to the business notability guidelines, but if we did this would certainly be a place where it would be applied. Perhaps there could be a mention of this on the List of internet phenomena and a redirect there, however? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The flea market itself is not notable... the subject of the meme and the business are quite easily separably discussed. As to the meme itself, I would argue that if WP:NOT does not apply, WP:WEB does. To wit, "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance." I don't mean to make an argument about the wording of the guidelines, but please note the "and". Furthermore, most of the coverage winds up bringing indiscriminate information to the article; the VH1 video for example focuses almost solely on Stephens. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete smaller than the usual size we keep shopping centers of various sorts, if seen in that light the one hand, and not important enough as a meme if seen that way.  DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per --Oakshade's excellent explanation in the first go round at AFD. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which doesn't exactly address all the points of this discussion, in particular that what little coverage there is neither passes WP:NOT nor permits content which passes WP:IINFO. Notability is a guideline; not all items which fail should be deleted, and similarly not all items which pass should be kept. Moreover, looking at the coverage through the lens of WP:RECENTISM, we should be asking whether such a slavish interpretation of WP:GNG is really appropriate. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article needs some tidying up but there seems to have been enough coverage due to the advert to give it notability. Mah favourite (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG's reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 07:43, 7 December 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.