Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Thunderbird
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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shannon Thunderbird[edit]
- Shannon Thunderbird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Lack of reliable external sources and questionable notability. A notability template was placed on the day the article was created, several months ago, and there has been no change in content since. Plastikspork (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep w/reservationssee below: I have say that I agree that the notability on this article is questionable, but I see enough mentions that I'm willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt. We are supposed to err on the side of inclusion, and in this case I'm going to have to do that. The individual has been interviewed, filmed, and recorded for a number of television/radio programs that are of smaller viewwership (see: http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/Television%20Sojourns.htm ) and that might be hindering our ability to find sources for those appearances. The biography information is found on Radio CBC (see: http://radio3.cbc.ca/bands/SHANNON-THUNDERBIRD/ ) and on a number of advertising sort of sources (see: http://www.storytellingtoronto.org/Directory_Pages/Dir_ShannonThunderbird.html and http://www.addictionstudies.ca/2006/keynote.html and http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=2818 ) as well. I'm going to have to recommend that we keep this article, with recognition that the sourcing for notability is somewhat questionable causing some reservations about doing so. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Have you added those links to the actual article? Plastikspork (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I listed them here for purposes of the notability discussion. If the article is kept, I'll be happy to add the sources that fit. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Heck, I had five minutes. I was able to source the first sentence sufficiently to prove notability in my mind, but some of the other sentences had to be sourced via her website for the time being, and I couldn't find a source for the last sentence. If somebody wants to pick up where I left off, please do. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I found this article while searching for short, poorly wikified articles in need of clean up. My only reason for posting it on AFD was that I noticed that the lack of reliable sources was not being addressed. If you want to clean it up, I would be happy to support keeping the article. It's hard for me to say if I would support keeping it until I saw the cleaned up version. Thanks for all your help! Plastikspork (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Heck, I had five minutes. I was able to source the first sentence sufficiently to prove notability in my mind, but some of the other sentences had to be sourced via her website for the time being, and I couldn't find a source for the last sentence. If somebody wants to pick up where I left off, please do. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I listed them here for purposes of the notability discussion. If the article is kept, I'll be happy to add the sources that fit. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay, everything in the article is now sourced. Some of it is sourced from her page, but notability is proven via at least two bios, and several other mentions. Currently there are three sources in the article that I feel are close enough to proving notability that I'm comfortable keeping it, and as noted above, there are some other mentions elsewhere. Meets WP:Notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Due to the recent improvements in the article, I retract my initial concerns and now vote to keep. Plastikspork (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Speedy Close: As per the nominator's withdrawal, I am recommended a speedy close in addition to my previous recommendation to keep. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2009 (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.