Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackobillia


 * 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackobillia

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

This is a neoligism, with only 4 non-wiki pages listed on Google  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * note: A Speedy Delete was original requested on this article, but rejected, as it does not meet the criteria. Following that, a Proposal for Deletion was made, but that was rejected also. Hence this AfD. The creator's response to the PROD was "because the subject is of great imortance tomany of wikipedia users, an the article is being worked with more sources cited" (from the article's Talk page)  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, made up, practically vandalism. Abductive (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Probably not WP:MADEUP (see the sources section), but a non-notable neologism nevertheless. Jafeluv (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Five results on Google, three of which are Wikipedia. Cargoking   talk  12:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is even spelt incorrectly. Cargoking   talk  12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think speedy deletion would be appropriate, because the article is not a blatant hoax. The term is used, for example, here and here, so it's not something made up by the author of the article. Being spelt incorrectly is a reason for moving, not for deleting. Of course, the fact that the expression hasn't been covered in multiple reliable sources does mean that it should be deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Judging by the lack of multiple sources (stated by Jafeluv) and the searches on Google stated by Cargoking . -- Dspradau   → talk   12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that Cargoking's Google search was for the term "Jackobillia" (currently the article title), but the sources used in the article use "Jackobilia". The article title could just be a typo. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True, your statement about the Google search is correct. It's possible that a typo occurred in the naming of the article. So, your mention of the expression not being covered in multiple reliable sources is still something I agree upon. Thank you for clarifying it to me.-- Dspradau   → talk   13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I neglected to check Google for the spelling with a single 'l' (sorry). I have however looked at the Google News results, and found 3 examples of the use of the term Jackobilia: April 2009, when Michael Jackson decided not to auction off some of his possessions; July 2007 (which is not about Michael Jackson at all); May 2004, about a woman who has memorabilia from the program from Cracker Jack (hence Cracker Jackobilia), again not about Michael Jackson. Most of the use of the term on the Google Search articles are either relating to the auction/not-auctioning of Michael Jackson's possessions mentioned in Google News in April 2009, or they are from personal blogs. Obviously, as I put up this AfD, my vote is delete.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 15:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I declined the speedy, on the basis that it was probably going to be deleted anyway. It is unfortunately it got this far. - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interests of fairness, I have left a polite message on the page creator's talk page, to remind them about the AfD, and asking them to contribute to this discussion.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable neologism Francium12 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just another WP:NEO that we don't need. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The original creator has moved it to Jackobilia, and someone has put a PROD on that page - do we need to change it to AfD on the new page?  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the PROD, put the original AfD back into the head of the article, and invited the editor who placed the PROD to join this discussion.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. Only a single Google news hit refers to Michael Jackson memorabilia, others refer to Cracker Jack collectibles or other unelated subjects.--RadioFan (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE there is about 776 hits on google for jackobilia this proves notability beyond any doubt, also the subject is of great interestet to millions of wikipedia users worldwide...Jomoal99 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on your talk page, most of those hits are about one of two stories - one where Jackson was going to auction some of his possessions, the other where he had cancelled it. The remainder are almost all from blogs. Going by that logic, we need to amend the Michael Jackson article to say that he isn't really dead, as there were 1060 hits on Google Search "Michael Jackson isn't really dead" (well, 1060 when I checked a couple of minutes ago)! We need reliable references.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with PhantomSteve. Reliable sources are the only thing that establishes notability in Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete: Definately agree with jomoal99,even if the google searches threw up blogs, blogs means people, people means notability, for this reason I say keep Jackobilia, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number67c (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)  — Number67c (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Comment I see you are new to Wikipedia as your only edits have been in this discussion so you may not be familiar Wikipedia guidelines. Take a look at how notability is defined and what are considered reliable sources.  Blogs don't necessarily mean people as anyone can create a blog on any topic.  This topic may be notable some day but it doesn't mean the criteria today.--RadioFan (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your logic does not work on Wikipedia! Notability requires verifiable evidence... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim. Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. - blogs are not reliable sources, as they are personal opinions. Going by your logic, Number67c, we really do need to mention that Michael Jackson is not really dead on the Michael Jackson article, as there are more blog hits about that.... If you want to keep this article, it is necessary to find reliable sources that are verifiable. That is how Wikipedia works.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 13:33, 26 July 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.

Michael Jackson..... Awthum(With A Lispe) Dude......!! King Of Pop Will Live On 4Ever...!!-=- Micky Fitz!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.64.205 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)