Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria (3D figure)


 * 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. Nominator has withdrawn, no arguments for deletion aside from one outstanding delete !vote. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Victoria (3D figure)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Advert for a 3D model without multiple reliable independent sources. Basically its a version release list. Contested prod but contester refused to add sources and told me to sod off. His suggestion to look up "computer arts" revealed only one source : still not enough to establish notability GDallimore (Talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree entirely with the nominator, this is basically an advertisement. The only source is the creator's own website. J I P  &#124; Talk 09:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well-known iconic figure in the 3D modeling universe (to the point that it is also parodied and made fun of). A search on Lexis-Nexis Academic for all news sources using the search "Daz3d w/10 Victoria" turns up 17 citations. Most are Business Wire announcements of versions of the product. However, there is one cite from ASIA PULSE (12/24/2004) for a "Miss Digital World" contest using Victoria 3.0, a similar article for the same contest in Business Wire Latin America, and an April 3, 2005 article in the Salt Lake Tribune mentioning the iconic nature of the product. I would posit that this might be the ONLY Daz3d product that might deserve a stand alone article. Don't mistake me for someone who will go to the mat to defend this article. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I went and added three sources to bolster the notability of this article (I figured best to "put up or shut up"). Still not sure if this article will survive, but let's carry through the process. And I agree that the original editors should have done this originally, but since they didn't, I did. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to enlighten you all and lighten the mood, if you Google "NVIATWAS" you should be able to see how this figure is (at least slightly) ridiculed. Might influence thoughts about notability, might not! --Quartermaster (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  Marcus   Qwertyus   17:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -  I was the evil PROD contester who told this AfD's nominator to "sod off" when he expected me to do his research. The utter inability of people to conduct an acceptable search for references concerns me given the number of articles we have and the number of editors we have. Some articles will get deleted for no reason other than a deletionist refused to consider appropriate search terms or even view the next ten search results in Google to get past all that SEO spam. That's not the ideal Wikipedia editor that I have in mind.  Back to relevant commentary: Regarding the Computer Arts review, what you are seeing online is not even the full article!!! Obviously without assessing the full review, one cannot conclude whether it contributes to notability or not. Additionally the find sources template used in this AfD to provide shortcuts to search results is flawed once again as it uses the Wikipedia article's title, not the Real World name for the topic. There are multiple versions of Victoria, so "Victoria n", where n is 2, 3, or 4? is more appropriate. "Victoria" is also used to refer to the enter line. I'll look for sources (relunctantly as all of you should instead of agreeing or disagreeing with the nominator or whoever without verifying whether their assertions are correct or not) when I have time. Rilak (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral and calm tone: In my personal and totally non-authoritative opinion, the onus for finding and presenting relevant third party sources establishing notability should be primarily on the creating and contributing editors. Anyone can contribute references (as I did), but I see a PROD as a mechanism to suggest to the interested contributing editors to extend a little more effort in beefing up an article. The editor placing the PROD is obviously seeing a deficient article, and since they are likely a naive third-party reader (like most wikipedia readers) it's a clue that to such a naive reader the article is not supplying enough cited content to be of particular utility. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Nominator comment Thank you to Quartermaster for tracking down multiple independent sources, as required by the notability guidelines. Following his edits, my nomination is withdrawn. Rilak, you need to take a look at your attitude. GDallimore (Talk) 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep What a funny old world we're living in today. Despite the sheer intangibility of this, or any, 3D render, it does have a certain significance and persistence within its unfamiliar world. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 28 October 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.