Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaggy Bevo


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shaggy Bevo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable website, notability unclear has been created multiple times and deleted need to end cycle of futility requesting community comment to decide one way or another. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - This has been deleted multiple times YESTERDAY (all deletions within 10-15 minutes period) during which time I was editing the site. I had no idea what was happening until I made my final save and saw the first message.  At that time I immediately contacted Hell in a Bucked to discuss the matter.  Hell in a Bucket responded by accusing me of misusing my account, then he accused me of being a Sockpuppet.  I told him I felt unfairly maligned and did not feel it fair to censor content unilaterally without considering the entire context.


 * I then uploaded the initial page containing references to coverage in the media, including reference to New York Times, and requested he assist me with a redirect from another possible spelling for our site. His only response to that request so far was to nominate my entry for deletion. I am not being antagonistic, but I have been a member of this community for many years and I have not abused the use of my account.  I do not understand the immediate summary dismissal of this entry on 3 occasions yesterday during its development, or its nomination for deletion now for not being sufficiently noteworthy despite its recognition by the sports community and independent news organizations (references included in article).


 * Neither is this entry unique in Wikipedia (multiple examples already provided, internal reference included in original article) and I simply desire an unbiased entry remain as created. This entry is not complete - but as a work in progress it certainly stands on its own in its current format.


 * As I mentioned before and will re-include this article as an example As requested we provided multiple references to our influence on the sports fan community, including this link to the New York Times article.


 * Shaggy Bevo is is not a joke, prank, advertisement, and this article does not represent any malicious use of Wikipedia.Williamwells (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – A couple of things, first of all, sorry you are feeling frustrated. We have all experienced that feeling when working with an article that has been deleted or marked for deletion.  I would encourage you to discuss your issues with HinB on his talk page.  The purpose of this page is to discuss the merits of the article and if it has met the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.


 * The article needs to meet Wikipedia criteria for notability.  If it does not    it will be nominated and deleted if it is not amended to meet the criteria.  I would suggest you consider creating an article in a User/sandbox and when it is completed move it to the mainspace – that way you will not be interrupted when editing.  Unfortunately, the article in the NYTimes is not an article, but a blog.  Additionally, it is does not contain significant coverage about the site – it is only mentioned in passing.  Please see WP:VERIFY for a discussion of blogs and their usefulness in Wikipedia to support an article.


 * I suggest you take a look at the welcome message in your talk page and read the sections that talk about creating articles. There is a lot of good information there.


 * No one is insinuating your work is a "joke, prank, advertisement, [or that the] article represent[s] any malicious use of Wikipedia". The article has been nominated for deletion because it fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. ttonyb  (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * comment in response, I have read the above reference and to quote a small sample of this, "..blogs[cited], Internet forums[cited], newsgroups[cited], online magazines[cited] and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." I believe I have met that burden.


 * I provided links to several noteworthy sources of online news as outlined in Wikipedia's definition of noteworthy. I also provided a link to another existing Wiki page that already references Shaggy Bevo.


 * Certainly you are not suggesting that you consider a blog, written by Paul Myerberg of the New York Times, somehow less newsworthy because the New York Times embraces this style of reporting? What of other NTY reporters that similarly report in both blog and traditional print formats like Janie Lorber or Kate Phillips?


 * I will cite a single example for illustration ( if you wish more that can be provided as well, but I think you will see my point). Consider the case of NYT reporter Stephen Ferrell, posting  this Blog entry.  No one would doubt this qualifies as noteworthy. References to this "blog" appeared on several other noteworthy news sources such as Reuters, BBC, and AP.  You cannot expect anyone to believe that blogs are not noteworthy.  If you do not agree then I will not sway your opinion of any blog-sourced information, New York Times or otherwise. Most would consider the quality of the NYT a cut above the rest.


 * Kindly address the internal reference to Hornfans, a similar site similarly mentioned in our references, similarly independent, mentioned as similarly influential in independent news reports, and this Wikipedia entry, short as it is, refers to Shaggy Bevo. Are these two entries not substantially similar articles about substantially similar organizations?  Kindly address what ytou consider the substantial differences in these two entries that warrant deletion for Shaggy Bevo and continued sanction for Hornfans.


 * Comment – rather than stray to far off the farm and discuss the merits of blogs and such, it is the lack of notability criteria that is in question. Specifically, the article does not appear to be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works."  I am not sure what you are asking with regards to Hornfans, but use of another Wikipedia article is not a valid reference – the original secondary source could be used for both, but must be specifically indicated in both articles.  Also, just because an article exists does not justify the existence of another article.  Each article must stand on its own merits.  See WP:WAX.  I have not looked at Hornfans, but it could be that the Hornfans does not meet the criteria and should be nominated for deletion.   ttonyb  (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – No GHIts or GNEWS to support article notability. Fails WP:WEB.  ttonyb  (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable yet....Not enough coverage in the media Corpx (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 20:42, 16 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.