Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina refrigerator

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 22:20Z

Katrina refrigerator

Non-notable. Only linked from one other article. Possibly original research. Previous nomintion. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm very surprised this survived the previous nomination - many of the "keep" comments simply said "it's interesting." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is an excellent example of why wikipedia demands multiple sources. The Times might publish a human interest story about a poor woman who needs surgery, as part of a larger theme of health care costs and poverty etc. This doesn't mean that specific woman should be the topic of a wikipedia article. That's essentially what the source for Katrina refrigerator is.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looking at the previous nomination, most of the comments didn't say simply "it's interesting"; one contributor happened to say "it's an interesting and verifiable phenomenon" (my bold text), which doesn't constitute a case of WP:ILIKEIT. The large collection of external links is testament to multiple non-trivial news coverage - not just a single human-interest article - and a book about the topic is even cited. As such, the phrase doesn't fail WP:NEO, nor does the article fail WP:V. Walton monarchist89 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if those external links could be used as references. I don't consider external links as such unless they're cited in the text, although I guess that might not be a common feeling.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was initially going to say "delete", but after further consideration, I think this article describes a notable cultural phenomenon created as a direct result of a major historical event. It was covered by NPR and other news outlets. Cultural anthropologists love this sort of thing, and I think it deserves WP inclusion at least as much as, say, a minor character from some 1980s Nintendo games. Dppowell 17:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. Verifiable and discussed in print and national media, and now as familiar a cultural phenomena in the central Gulf Coast as king cake.
Delete WP:OR ffm ^yes? 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles that mention refrigerators are not all about the "temporary folk art" aspect, and something being a cute feature in a newspaper does not always mean it is encyclopedic. We don't need articles on "Katrina dead dogs" or "Katrina moldy carpet" "Katrina couches" or "Katrina cars" which would also be found in the aftermath of a flood. Inkpaduta 21:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears to be verifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in NYT[1], Bergen Record (behind paywall; article won award), Baton Rouge Advocate in addition to sources in article. There seem to be other objects than fridges involved in some of these, but I'm not sure what a better name would be other than something like Katrina debris art. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is actually a really interesting article, which of course (in and of itself) is not sufficient to save it from deletion. However, there seem to be plenty of sources (such as those cited by Dhartung and others) that would establish the notability of this phenomenon. I also note that Infrogmation has beefed up the content of this article since the AfD was posted to reference some of these sources. Seventypercent 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My reasoning hasn't changed since the first AfD. Dhartung's references only reinforce my position. Caknuck 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and notable enough for me. Maxamegalon2000 06:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Varisco book helps a lot and would almost do it on its own. Adding Dhartung's sources, quite sound, convinces me this is notable. — coelacan talk — 12:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject does meet standards for verifiability, but remove any and all original research. Example: [2] Yamaguchi先生 08:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.