Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss Kasket

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

With no editors suggestion deletion other than the nominator, the consensus is clearly to keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Kasket[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Odd piece of fan merchandise that fails WP:PRODUCT. The item, which is discontinued, has been mentioned in some reliable sources, but the coverage I saw was not significant in nature. Usually it was either a mention or maybe a couple of paragraphs. Of the 3 sources in the article, 2 are from the company/seller. 1 is a mention of someone being buried in one. The lack of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources and the fact that the company itself doesn't have an article to redirect this to leads me to the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- needs more sourcing, but given the unusual nature of the product, plus the fact that the late great Dimebag Darrell is buried in one gives it some notability over and above just being a simple piece of fan merchandise. I say weak keep, however, because it could certainly use more sourcing. I also wouldn't object, assuming there's such an article, to some kind of merge into an article on KISS merchandise. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew someone would mention that. Do we now make every shoe, pair of pants or sunglasses a notable person uses notable in its own right? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I weren't at work currently, I'd try to dig up some more sourcing. That I currently cannot is why I qualified my Keep as a weak one. That said, (warning: OR coming up), I know I heard about the thing well before Dime's death. The notability doesn't stem from the fact that he was buried in it (although that doesn't hurt), it stems from the fact that a rock band put its likeness and logo on such an unlikely product as a casket. I realize my arguments are really just a variation of WP:ITSNOTABLE, however there's little I can do at the moment to provide concrete sources. If I can find some time this weekend (and if nobody else does it), I will certainly try to find some sources and add them to the article.Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought an interesting part of their sales pitch was that since it was waterproof, it could be used as a big ice chest and filled with beer. Novel without a doubt, but I couldn't quite call that notable, even if someone wrote a paragraph about it (which I found). As a side note, one of the articles I found that mentioned it did pose an interesting question about what archeologists would think a couple hundred years down the road when they dig it up. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found some sourcing, this: [1], possibly this (although its in spanish, so I'm not sure),[2], this [3], this [4] (interview with Stanley & Simmons discussing it), [5] (admittedly may not be a reliable source, I'm not sure), and this [6]. Should certainly be enough to prove the notability of the item. There does seem to be more out there as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found those (well, not the spanish one) before the nom. The closest one to being significant was the BBC one, but that was really only 3.5 paragraphs, then it talked about their other merchandising. I don't incredibly strongly about this, but I would like to see at least one reliable source that is obviously significant in it's coverage. If that happened, I'd consider withdrawing the nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Umbralcorax. Agree, we need more sourcing, but I've seen this on TV and in print both. Not sure how we can cite TV reports on it, but I can confirm that such exist, somewhere. So, it's sourceable, and the notability is thin but clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were that clear, I wouldn't have nom'd it. There is no dispute it existed (not in production for several years), but what is lacking is significant coverage. I can find trivial stuff and proof it existed, not anything significant though. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- Certainly this is a piece of Americana Rock'n'Roll and as such has cultural value pertinent to the time of production. Come on folks. It's not like we're running out of space and need to clean house. You can't tell the complete Dimebag story without referencing the Kiss Kasket. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabarge (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is talking about altering Darryl's story. Redirecting the term to his article would increase traffic to it. But his use alone shouldn't justify a stand-alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2010 (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.