Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lootie

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Merge to List of Internet phenomena or Media involvement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina Note that a Merge result is a special, limited form of keep due to GFDL concerns. DES (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lootie[edit]

Lootie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. Prod reason was "Not notable". Tag was removed by an anon but replaced by the original prodder, and subsequently deleted. This is procedural, I am neutral. Mangojuicetalk 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with List of Internet phenomena and Redirect. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. Plainly there's no biographical information for an unidentified photograph. The "sources" are Myspace pages, blogs, games, along with a single piece from an academic website and one from a white supremacist site. This is scanty information worth reflecting on the List, if that much.  RGTraynor  15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, we can't really libel a guy we don't even know the name of, and it is WP:Verifiable... the article contends the AP took a picture of a guy with a hamper full of Heinekens and some in his pocket too. (it's a pretty funny picture too, the guy has a big grin on his face) and contends the picture became the subject of an Internet meme. That's all the article says. Both those statements are sourced and verifiable. -N 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just want to clarify: which sources are the ones you like? Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of them currently leave a good taste in my mouth. The original AP picture is probably not linkable to anymore. I'll have a look for better sources. -N 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snopes, which is usually good on sourcing, doesn't even have links to anything. This means the only "reliable sources" on this topic are the picture itself (which was deleted for being a press photo), some professor using his university webspace as a blog (I have not yet evaluated the professor himself, for example if it were Isaac Asimov writing the essay it would be a good source no matter where it was published) and a previously deleted link from the article about David Duke's rantings on the subject. I agree, not enough to warrant a biography. It looks more like a dictionary definition right now, more worthy of urban dictionary. Weak keep or merge. -N 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, if we absolutely must, merge; crap off teh internets, no inherent notability, no substantial independent coverage and Photoshopping does not actually fix that. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Media involvement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, interesting phenomenon in media coverage, not something that needs its own article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Night Gyr - well put. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable, little verification, news spike cruft. Marskell 11:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as above. Definitely not a subject for an individual article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge unless reliable sources are found that prove to be verifiable. --SunStar Net talk 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having reviewed things, there are no reliable sources on this subject at all. If there were, I doubt it would be worth an entry anyway: people photoshop lots of images into other images: THAT is notable, but these individual images are not. Mangojuicetalk 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of internet phenomenon. Insufficient sourcing or other evidence of notability to justify a separate article. The snopes source and the professor's article both focus on the image as a photoshopped internet phenomenon more than as any real critique of the media coverage of Katrina. So, I think a brief mention on the phenomenon list is a better merge.--Kubigula (talk) 22:32, 30 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lootie&oldid=1082408366"