Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kibology


 * 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.

Non admin closure, The result was Keep. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this article to pass WP:GNG, which several editors demonstrated. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 10:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kibology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unreferenced article that I don't think meets WP:N, and I'm not sure if WP:WEB would apply, because it is related to the non-WWW Internet, but I don't think it meets that one, either. Best case, there might be something salvageable to merge to James Parry, a.k.a. Kibo. If not, and no viable references can be found, it should be deleted or redirected. The Wordsmith Communicate 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable sources to assert notability. Usenet is not reliable. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to James Parry. I was pleasantly surprised at how many sources Google turns up (e.g.,, , , , numerous book references).  At the very least, there's enough for a well-referenced section in James Parry.  I'm leaning towards merge, but I have no strong opinion.  It's definitely a good search term for Kibo. --Chris Johnson (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to James Parry. The article may be unsourced, but reliable sources are available; there was a Wired article on Parry, and Google news archive search produces many sources, including San Jose Mercury News, Boston Herald, Arizona Daily Star, The Register, etc.  Since the Wikipedia standard for notability is that information exist in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I conclude that Kibology meets the standard for notability.  In fact, I wonder why the nominator didn't check for notability before opening the AFD.  —Dominus (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, verified for independent sources. Saying "Usenet is not reliable." is a sweeping generalization of little relevency, akin to saying "The Internet is not reliable". -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Usenet posts can under certain circumstances be reliable (in sense of WP:RS) as primary sources, but they aren't reliable secondary sources (again, in Wikipedia's sense of "reliable".) WP:N requires significant coverage in secondary sources.  The point is moot here as there is coverage in newspapers and whatnot. --Chris Johnson (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that the nominator has not notified the frequent contributors to the article of the AfD, as is customary.  —Dominus (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the AFD was set up with Twinkle, the article creator was notified automatically. The Wordsmith Communicate 02:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Erwin85Bot seems to have it under control. —Dominus (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dominus. Not notable?  This AFD is a joke, right?  --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the granddaddy of Internet memes. Dominus and Chris point out plenty of sources. Kmusser (talk) 17:36, 29 October 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.