Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO Phil (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nja 247 07:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

UFO Phil
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Film of questionable notability. The article has been nominated for deletion twice previously, and was deleted both times - first discussion, second discussion. This is the second time it has been reposted, tagged for speedy deletion as a repost, the speedy nomination refused, and so this is now the third deletion nomination for the same subject. I would appreciate someone informing me why deletion review appears to be an optional process in this instance. Besides that this is a genuine nomination as I still do not believe that the subject is that notable.  role player 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Character is involved in movie and radio appearances. Has had some reliable coverage. I don't see how deleting the article makes the encyclopedia better, but this certainly isn't the most notable subject in the world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As I said last time, I think he's (barely) notable enough because of his association with two well-known radio shows (in the US, anyway). He made Dr. Demento's Funny Five several times. BTW, we shouldn't expect new users to know anything about deletion review, so cut the article creator some slack. He's trying. Also, two of those sources didn't exist when the article was last brought to AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My question re deletion review wasn't against the article creator, it was against the admin who refused to delete it as a repost. --  role player 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not a huge deal of RS coverage, but their is evidence that the character has developed a cult following. I believe it would thus qualify under  WP:ENT  for having "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following."  Also to the nom: FYI, the speedy request was declined because the new content is substantially different than the content that was deleted under AfD.  My understanding is that deletion review is only for cases where the admin potentially erred in their closing, not for cases where a subject might have gained notability (or had sources discovered) after the AfD happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:31, 10 June 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.