Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nichlas Vilsmark


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nichlas Vilsmark

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Advert for non-notable florist Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The information in the article appears to be factual and I would have thought a florist with those credentials was about as notable as a florist could get. Unfortunately the test is WP:N - significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  The sources quoted in the article are uniformly either not "significant coverage" or not "reliable independent sources".  Good faith Google searches for "Nichlas Vilsmark" and "Vislmark florist" turn up literally thousands of relevant hits but I can't for the life of me find any constituting significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  They all seem to be just directory listings and promotional placements. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with the above comments - no significant coverage in the third party sources. This project is not intended for promotion. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As with 3rd-world bios, one has to be realistic here. How many floral critics are there? We only have about 6 florist bios, including one politician who had a shop for a year. If the subject area was better covered, no doubt he would feature in reviews. There are hundreds of web-hits but all advertising. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The first delete indicates the subject is "about as notable as a florist could get". If the standard application of WP:N leads to deletion, we are faced with the prospect of not having articles on florists, regardless of their prominence in their field, or to decide that, as stated at the top of the guideline, we should apply "common sense" and retain the article as one of the "occasional exceptions". There are third party sources given. There are also print sources, where significant coverage is indicated.  Ty  00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I said included the phrase "I would have thought". I'm clearly not an expert on florists or press coverage of them, but this isn't the place to attempt to change WP:N.  I understand wanting to say "reliable coverage of this topic is poor, so let's abandon the rules about reliable coverage", because there's a similar problem with coverage of tabletop roleplaying games, but you can't make unreliable sources reliable just by wishing them so.  If you feel florists should get more coverage on Wikipedia, go out and start a reliable press organisation and cover them.  But Wikipedia isn't the place to start a revolution. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No change to WP:N: it, like all guidelines, has always been subject to "common sense" and "occasional exceptions". There is no abandoning rules of reliable coverage: WP:V is a mandatory, core policy, and is met in the article. As I pointed out, "There are third party sources given. There are also print sources, where significant coverage is indicated." There are now additional sources in the article. The common sense comes in evaluating whether such sources justify the inclusion of an article or not, and here a consideration of the genre as a whole is relevant. WP:PROF, for example, recognises that an academic may be worthy of an article because of their position within their speciality, even though there may not have been extensive wider coverage, simply because the speciality is not mainstream in a pop-driven culture. I suggest that a similar consideration applies here, and that, for example, being the florist for a royal wedding and being singled out as a supplier for national institutions indicates the person has achieved a position of notability which justifies the article.  I don't think you need to be too concerned that keeping it will result in widespread insurrection.  Ty  12:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I still disagree with you, but that's an awesome reply. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2010 (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.