Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarfolk


 * 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 Keep. Salix alba (talk): 09:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Scarfolk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see limited evidence that this blog is notable, though some citations are present. In addition, the entire article has been created by an editor claiming to be the blog's original/only creator, suggesting lack of public interest. No substantive edits to it beyond minor changes to categories have been made by any other user. Blythwood (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not sure why you want to remove this article. I know it was written by the person responsible for Scarfolk in the first place but, if it gets deleted no one will write another one as it has a small following and people don't like to write articles for wikipedia as they get taken down all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarazoo (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom not notable .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable blog/multimedia project given its "Reception" section. While the article could do with revisions, an outright deletion would not befit the article.--DrWho42 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be aware of sockpuppetting attempts https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scarfolk-Council/469491913116002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.221.165 (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — 27.252.221.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Did you mean "canvassing"? I thought sock puppetry referred to the use of alternate accounts to sway discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppeting? You mean the thing where one edit IP addresses pop up out of nowhere to push an agenda? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Scarfolk is a brand and includes a physical product (printed book) as well as existing in electronic medium, to delete it from Wikipedia is like saying that the brand never existed. The description clearly states that Scarfolk is fictional. It should definitely remain on Wikipedia, otherwise what exactly is the point of Wikipedia ? WikiMaddi (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * keep Do we now delete works of fiction?  Is humour to be removed?  I can see no other reason for this nomination.  Scarfolk itself is substantial as a project and it has also been picked up and commented upon by the mainstream press, which is exactly what we look for.  "It's a blog, delete it" is to miss the point entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * keep The fictional Scarfolk does have references in print and online media, and there is a physical product available now in 2 days. --Dee Earley (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability has been established by widespread coverage, which is referenced in the article itself. Bonusballs (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2014 (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.