Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson the Volleyball


 * 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. There's no consensus to delete and while the arguments for a straight keep grew stronger following the work by MQS, the location for the information doesn't require the continued AfD. Can be discussed on the talk if a merge is preferred. StarM 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilson the Volleyball

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable fictional character. It was a volleyball...not a "character" and the primary bulk of this article is more plot summary from the film along with a seriously heavy dose of WP:OR and not a single reference. That Wilson made a film promo around it is not a notable enough fact for this "character" to have its own article at all. And all of the relevant plot points are already covered in Cast Away -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 12:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but those in-article plot points are only relevent to the film and Wilson now has a "life" outside that universe. The search was both enlightening and quite fun.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Redirects are cheap and this is a relatively likely search term. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete - article is nothing more than a collection of miscellaneous information, and Wilson was not really a character, merely an invention of Chuck's mind. Fails WP:FICT. - RD (Talk) 13:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. per Mgm. Message from XENU u, t  14:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect, no merge, especially the "Cultural impact" section which is an indiscriminate collection of trivial mentions. — Erik (talk • contrib) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found, especially The Journal of Popular Culture. Who woulda thunk? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 06:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Wilson seems to have a life of his (or its) own outside of the movie. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? - RD (Talk) 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Boldly redirect - Plausible search term, no actual notability outside movie.--Boffob (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thought at first a merge and redirect was in line, but searches quickly found enough on the character/item to show that it now has a notability outside of the film where it "starred". Notability is easily confirmed in Relaible Sources through articles that are specific and in-depth. I added a few refs to the article and would encourage cleanup and further sourcing, as this character/item has now affected film and culture far outside its original niche, including references in other films, becoming part of American/world volleyball culture, and extensive sales of the replica as a memorium.., among many others.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would encourage the many editors who contributed to the article to do a rewrite of the "popular culture" section to make it a part of the complete article... and to source the facts presented there.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the refs you added all only confirm that the volley ball is, in fact, a Wilson brand volleyball. That isn't really even a fact that needs sourcing, its literally written all over him. :-P That doesn't show notability outside of the film, as the film article itself notes the extensive amount of product placement in this film. Nor does it show that this very specific volleyball is somehow a super notable product of a notable sporting good company outside of the film. The "in pop" section is purely unsourced and a random collection of stuff that may or may not even have anything to do with the volley ball. Considering the main film article is very brief, if there are legitimate ones there that actually can be sourced, why not merge them into to the film article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With respects, Google News archives...this is a volleyball that has impacted a generation, and has verifiable notability in multiple reliable sources. I suppose I might have to take a hand in further sourcing the article itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, in the three minutes I found those immediate sources, I found much, much more. So yes (sigh), I'll add them since improving the article improves wiki per WP:ATD. May take a while, as I cannot sit here for the next 3 hours straight.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And since so much more can be said about the "character" outside the Tom Hanks film, a merge diminishes wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not indeed.... So let's have a go at making the seperate article encyclopeic and well sourced. I'll send out a notice to all the involved editors in a few minutes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: Have rewritten per MOS and sourced the article to show the specific notability of the volleyball as co-protagonist and its continued notability 7 years later. Now to source as many of the various other references as I can. Ain't through by a long shot. Quite an interesting little ball.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (Looks at article) Oh, it's that Wilson! I don't know what the article looked like at the time of nomination, but as it currently stands it seems to have sufficient third-party sourcing. At the very least the AFD should be put on hold given ongoing efforts to bring the article up to standards. But if it weren't changed from here I'd say it's viable and satisfies notability after revisions and sourcing. 23skidoo (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per MQS' input -- passes WP:RS without problems. Go, Wilson! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although it mostly reads like an essay, there is enough information to show its notability and the article is well sourced.  Good job, MQS. Themfromspace (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well sourced? You might want to take a closer look at the cites. Many don't work, others are about the movie Cast Away with only brief mention of the ball. And many are cited multiple times everywhere, just to overload the text with footnotes. Look, this statement is so sourced! [1][2][3][4][5]...[eleventy!!!] Once cleaned up of the clutter, there's nothing that can't be included in the movie article.--Boffob (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Too many sources? Wow. And you speak toward my motivation in my making this article as strongly sourced as possible? Please don't imply you can read my mind. What I have done is as strongly sourced this article as possible. If kept per WP:ATD, cleanup might streamline the sources. And yes, though of the sources are of the film, they "mention" Wilson in context to what is being sourced... his notability. Wilson has plenty of independent notability, and naturally all will mention his roots. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed much of the perceievd oversourcing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep to strongly consider merging to Cast Away as an editorial decision. I see a lot of sourced plot summary, many unreliable sources and a lot of trivial popcult references (two lines for a throw-away comment in Stargate Atlantis, really?), but trimming and merging now is not absolute priority. – sgeureka t•c 14:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did my best to source what was there, hesitating to toss out anyt other editor's contributions as long as its remaining might ultimately improve the article. One might note that "pop cult" is a flash in the pan, while Wilson's notability has continued for 8 years. But the article's editing is not yet finished, and if we have a WP:ATD keep, there are parts that will be removed as unsourced... and I have not stopped looking.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, with emphasis on restructuring the article so that it is not a "fictional character biography". Wilson (the "character" and the minor cult following it received) is the subject of a scholarly article in The Journal of Popular Culture, a reliable source (see ) Bradley0110 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage of real world context in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Lots of trivial coverage does not add up to significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and with respects, there is definitely significant coverage in real world context in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. These include Detroit News, Daily Gazette, Los Angeles Times, Beacon Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Journal of Popular Culture, among others, and coverage has been constant over the 8 years since the film's release. Notability outside the universe of Cast Away is assured. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The names of publishers and the number of years since the movie has been out doesn't add up to significant coverage. I did look at the article and it fails the notability requirement, because there is no significant coverage. The article is full of nothing but plot and trivia. Jay32183 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I saw the rescue tag and came in and substantially reworked the article. I think it's worth keeping, as it has definite cultural impact and there are plenty of sources. It's also a good addition to Category:Film sidekicks. --Elonka 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent job. Well done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The weakest keep imaginable. On the basis that this encyclopedia has literally hundreds of articles about Pokemon, all written by children aged under 14, I cannot muster a single coherent argument for deleting this addition to human knowledge. If all the Pokemon stuff stays, then so should this. Hell, let's have everything. And before you start to lecture me about it, yes, I've read and understood WP:OSE. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at least Merge into the Cast Away article as its own small section; it seems that this article has been aptly referenced since it was nominated for deletion, and Elonka has made it considerably more encyclopedic. While perhaps not a "character," Wilson is practically iconic of the film and, dare I say it, on par with Princess Leia's metal bikini in the notability department. I would like to see the Journal of Popular Culture reference and others incorporated to boost the article, and a number of the minor cultural references (yes, Stargate) trimmed. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:36, 29 November 2008 (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.