Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabirock


 * 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. --Core desat 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sabirock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Er... an article about a "mysterious man in the Greater Manchester area, who walks around all day... wearing a sandwich board". Someone else tagged this as a speedy A7, but another editor removed it on the creator's behalf. The CNN link is more trivial than it might look, it's just a blog for Manchester that accepts reader submissions. Every city in the world has characters that are known locally. They don't get Wikipedia articles. Crazysuit 00:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete As per above. DBZROCKS 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial person. JuJube 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. WLDtalk 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable, per nom.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the BBC link is dead, the CNN link is a trivial mention. If more sources can be found, I'll change my mind. J Milburn 00:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without further references for notability. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, and the links provided are about trivial, if that. Alex43223T 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ridiculous violation of WP:BIO and WP:NN. -- KZ Talk • Contribs 02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even though this article appears to be notable, but somebody need to provide the references for notability. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mysteriously delete - OMG! Attention all Wikipedians, BIO writing has hit a new low. The first line cracks me up... Delete outright. Spawn Man 05:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only marginally notable, with insufficient sourcing. --Cheers, Afluent Rider 06:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say Please DON'T Delete. I put the article on originally and I must confess I am new at this so it isn't very well written. I accept that there are not sufficient references and I accept it is baddly written but to delete the article because of my inability would be wrong.  I put it up as a framework for other people with more sources to edit and improve, not to just delete straight away.  This man is not just a 'well known person' in Greater Manchester and he is more than a local celebrity.  Mike Toolan is a radio presenter in a local radio station, but he gets a page and he has much less of a story about him than Sabirock does.  Please do not delete this page, please help me add more references!   (Mawkish1983 08:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
 * By the way, the CNN link is not just to a blog, it is an article written by Badly Drawn Boy (i.e. the band) and they recognise that Sabirock is more of a landmark and a must-see attraction than a nobody. (Mawkish1983 08:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:RS. Terence 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Another important thing to remember is that this man is notable for being an enigma. He is notable because so little is known about him and the fact is that he keeps it that way!  Around Greater Manchester, when this man is spotted, it is like a ghost sighting and people get very excited about it.  To have this page deleted on the basis that he is not notable only works if the test for notability is the paper-trail a person leaves.  What makes Sabirock special is that he leaves no trail!!!  I have read the arguements above and I still say please DON'T delete.  (Mawkish1983 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
 * In fact, Wikipedians define notability to be "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice" and specifically state that "it is not synonymous with fame or importance" (See WP:N). I think everybody in Greater Manchester would agree this man attracts notice and is worthy of being noted!  After all, he HAS attracted notice!  I am argueing this a lot because whilst this article is about a real person, the person keeps himself as an enigma which adds to his notability!  As a global encyclopaedia, wikipedia is for people who live in Greater Manchester as much as it is for people who live elsewhere.  Greater Manchester itself is a significant place with a significant population, and absolutely everybody I have spoken to agrees that Sabirock is a notable local celebrity BECAUSE he is such an enigma with so little information about him!  Please Don't delete this article!  (Mawkish1983 10:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
 * No, Wikipedians define notability to be "The subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject". Which this isn't. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  10:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no verifiable, sourced information. If/when such information becomes available, recreate the article. --Ashenai 10:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete its obvious self promo--Zedco 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't self promo - it's not about me! (Mawkish1983 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Delete All I really needed to read was the first sentence. A mysterious man that wears a sandwich board sign around Manchester... But, he's also a freelance builder. Okay, clearly not notability. Being mysterious or crazy does not make one notable. -- Cy ru s      An dir on   12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed the point, the builder part is just a bit of backgroun and the only background anyone can find on him. He's not a builder now.  (Mawkish1983 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Do not delete I don't think this page should be deleted because I live in Manchester and he's become a local celebrity...just because we don't have a lot of information on him, doesn't mean the page should be deleted, this page actually has the most information on SabiRock than any other webpage I've come across...the article is lacking on info for a reason....and that's the reason why everyone likes the man! The mystery behind him is what's getting people talking about him. His music is really good too...so he should be known for that as well...if CNN mentions him, I don't see why Wikipedia can't. If anything, this page is an informative tribute to the local legend :) (UniqueKiwi 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)) — UniqueKiwi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. How is this 'spa' relevent?
 * It's relevant because UniqueKiwi is obviously a sock-puppet. Crazysuit 03:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - CNN doesn't mention him - a user on a chat page hosted by CNN mentions him. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response comment - the user was Badly Drawn Boy, a famous musician from Manchester. Also, the chat page was not contributable by the public, only by accredited reputable editors (of which Badly Drawn Boy is one).  To disregard this reference would be as unjust as disregarding ANY reference, as they are ALL written out of the public domain by a an accredited person granted special permission.  Yes, even a news reporter for a news paper fits into this catagory.  (146.87.255.19 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Delete, fails WP:NN, WP:V. "just because we don't have a lot of information on him, doesn't mean the page should be deleted" is exactly why the page should be deleted.   RGTraynor  14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's delete stonehendge, crop circles and Jord then shall we? Using that logic, we could strip away a LOT of wikipedia pages, RGTraynor.  I don't think it's a good idea to use that arguement.  (Mawkish1983 14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * I think it's an excellent idea, actually. Equating internationally well-known subjects for which thousands of references exist with some local character unknown beyond the Manchester city limits for whom no reliable, independent, published sources exist is what isn't a good argument to use.    RGTraynor  17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to keep argueing, RGTraynor, but I feel it is important Sabirock is included on this encyclopaedia. If it was true that local only subjects were not allowed to be included here, Mike Toolan should have been removed.  He hasn't.  I still fail to see why Sabirock should be removed when I compare the article about him, the references to him and the number of people who know of him to another pseudo-celebrity (like Mike Toolan) who remain on here without arguement.  You accept that this local character is known within the city limits of Manchester (actually the county limits of Greater Manchester, but we shalt be picky), so why should he be removed when other local characters remain?  Again, I am sorry for continually argueing about this, but this seems like hypocracy to me.  Perhaps it is victimisation, so what is Sabirock's crime exactly?  (Mawkish1983 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * And I am sorry, but I still disagree with your statement that there are no reliable, independent, published sources. I have listed pleanty of independent references (from the public).  One reference points to a page of pictures taken of Sabirock (providing reliability of the statements given in the aforementioned sources).  As for being published, the CNN reference is more than a blog (as I have said many times).  In order to add an article to the particular page, one must be endowed certain privelages by the CNN Website Admin.  Badly Drawn Boy was endowed such privelages because of his fame.  I do not see why the reference to the CNN Website is any less notable than any other reference that can be given.  Please do not take this arguement personally, I simply believe strongly that Wikipedia needs a page about Sabirock, as he is a Manchester landmark and a local celebrity.  Any arguements that he is not a Manchester landmark are false.  Any arguements that he is not a local celebrity are also false.  So, why should he be removed?  (Mawkish1983 20:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually, I don't accept that he's well known in Manchester; I'm simply not a Mancusian myself and lack the standing to comment on it one way or another. But first off, let's review your sources.  #1 is a blog.  #2 is a blog.  #3 is a blog.  #4 is a blog.  #5 is a Yahoo message board.  #6 is a list of addresses.  #7 is a bulletin board.  The final two are posted song lyrics. I strongly urge you review WP:V and WP:RS, the relevant policies on reliable sources, which hold: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."We're not talking blogs and bulletin boards, we're talking published books, newspapers or TV shows with available transcripts.  None of your sources remotely qualify.  Aside from anything else, the simple fact that the unanimous consensus of every editor but yourself who has commented on this article is for deletion should be telling.    RGTraynor  01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just for record, because Mawkish1983 seems extremely confused about the CNN blog, and the fact that anyone can add information to it. Firstly, he's claimed at least four times that the blog was written by Badly Drawn Boy. Wrong, it just has a picture of Badly Drawn Boy because there's a clip of him in Manchester on the same page. Secondly... oh who cares - this article is doomed anyway. Crazysuit 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough, but I do have to thank Mawkish, because I've just filed a prod on the Mike Toolan article, agreeing with him that the subject is non-notable.   RGTraynor  07:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:BIO. This is clearly an A7 violation and should have been Speedy Deleted.  Kntrabssi 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:BIO, do not pass go.  Ar ky an  &#149; (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else who said to delete. Acalamari 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If a bandwagon approaches there will always be those who chose to jump. This page is not meant to be a Sabirock Biography.  It is not promoting his music or himself.  It is not advertising.  This page is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article about a landmark in Greater Manchester.  The user who commented on Sabirock on the CNN reference is Badly Drawn Boy, a very famous and sucessful band from Manchester.  Sabirock is a moving landmark, and as such should be included in an encyclopaedia such as wikipedia.  Rather than joining in the witchhunt that this page has become, think for yourself whether Sabirock should be removed.  I maintain that Sabirock should not be removed from wikipedia.  I vote again, DO NOT DELETE.  (Mawkish1983 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete - nn. Also, a lot of it is original research, with no real prospect that that can be fixed by using reliable sources. Metamagician3000 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's Start the Discussion Again
Having read what everybody has said and what responses people (mostly me) have given, can we start the discussion again? Please don't just say 'delete' because everybody else does: be unique and see that Sabirock NEEDS to be on wikipedia, as he is an important local landmark! So, let's start the discussion again:
 * Do not delete for all the reasons I have been going on about above (Mawkish1983 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Do not delete as per Mawkish1983. Nswinton 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bowing Down to the Majority Vote
I've reviewed the wikipedia rules, and tried to manipule them to keep Sabirock's page here. I have tried to validate and justify my sources, despite the fact that they are nothing more than blogs. I have even tried the underhanded tactic of 'well if this person has an article, why can't Sabirock', but in the end it is absolutely clear to be that an article about Sabirock is not suitable for wikipedia at this time. To all the people who have taken the time to argue with me, thank you - this was my first article and I have learnt a lot. I am sorry to have wasted everybody's time. This article should have been speedily removed, it is an A7 violation. I won't put up a fight. To the wikipedia-overlords: I am happy to see this page deleted and I am sorry for attempting to polute wikipedia (even though my intentions were good).

Thank you for joining in the arguement, and I am sorry for wasting your time. (Mawkish1983 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
 * It's not a waste of time; gauging whether articles meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability is what those who tackle AfD discussions do, and if the task wasn't important to us we wouldn't do it. The best way to move on, if you still wish to write articles - and we encourage you to do so - is to apply Occam's Razor:  if after digging you can't find reliable sources for a subject, the subject almost certainly isn't notable.  Come to that, that's exactly what we do here in AfDs.    RGTraynor  13:22, 17 April 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.