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 delete. Consensus is the subjects are not sufficiently notable.--Kubigula (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Flamingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Most Wanted Flamingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article for a non-notable fictional character. Both "The Pink Flamingo" and "Most Wanted Flamingo" appear to be the same article, so I'm AfD'ing both. Rnb (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per this unsurprising Google result. If anything notable comes from Myspace, it ought to show up on Google. (I think The Pink Flamingo was supposed to be a redirect.) AnturiaethwrTalk 22:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - have received no coverage whatsoever --T-rex 00:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NONE The author of the adventures of Pink Flamingo is very talented and her blogs are hysterical. And although she does not receive money or is famous (yet) that should not exclude the entry on this FREE encyclopedia. It is possible that this character will become more main stream in the future. Also, if any context listed here must be worthy of a Google search then why should there even be a Wikipedia? However, if you do the correct search of "The pink flamingo" +myspace -wikipedia then you will see that The Pink Flamingo is number 2 on the return. Plus, since Myspace is a Social Networking site, the Pink Flamingo has received plenty of coverage.--Madcowgunn (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles on Wikipedia must meet notability requirements, which the subject of this article does not appear to, hence the reason the articles are being considered for deletion. Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good policy, it's still a policy of Wikipedia. Also, the only hits I see returned with that search are the MySpace pages, which are not considered valid sources (see WP:RS for information on what constitutes a reliable source.) If the subject is covered in a reliable source independent of the subject, please let us know. Rnb (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, the site doesn't work that way. Just because this is a free encyclopedia doesn't mean it's going to cover everything that's ever existed. This character has to meet the verifiability guidelines right now - the possibility they may become famous one day is not enough. And MySpace is definately not a reliable source, so that is not enough to be considered verifiable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A rebuttal to NOT delete, again Yes, I understand it should not include everything that ever existed (that was rather insulting by the way. I love a good debate but would appreciate the insults to left out of it), my point was that since it is free site and it should support writers that post on a regular basis on any website. Plus, it does not contain all of the same info that one would find in an actual Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is great but includes a ton of fantasy truthiness that in the real world would not hold merit. And, I have found many of myspace bloggers on Wikipedia. One of which I just did a Google search on and they are not located anywhere else except Myspace. I also know of small business owners that are listed on here as well, that should not be based on the arguments above. --Madcowgunn (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This really isn't the place to discuss whether or not we like Wikipedia's policies, but it is the place to discuss whether or not the subjects of these two articles have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so if we could stay on that task, that would be great. As far as other articles not complying with this policy, if you know of any, you are free to tag them or nominate them for deletion as I did with these two. Rnb (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The main subject matter of my responses had nothing to do with whether I like the policies. I was including support to the significant coverage on this fictional character, as well as, debating the information that was written back regarding this subject matter. However, I will continue the following in wiki language. There is a global rule of Ignore all rules. "Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia". Not allowing small time writers the ability to get their work out to the public, does hinder improvement. This author has been writing for over a year on this fictional character. Also, any artists should never be omitted because they do not have a thousand hits on Google (and Google does not check on whether a link is verifiable or whether it violated any copyright laws). I also read your other policies and there is nothing that excludes Myspace as a verifiable source. In addition, this is a work of fiction, and I included the links to verify the source of the material listed. --72.90.50.191 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems clear to me that Myspace is covered by WP:SPS and that including non-notable subjects in Wikipedia would hurt it, so I'll just leave it at that and wait for consensus. Rnb (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Our current guidelines provide that we do not cover every blogger, just the more notable ones, and I don't see any evidence that this blogger/fictional character has attained notability per WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read through of your policies and have not found anything that would exclude bloggers on Myspace, which is owned by News Corp (reliable source). Nor, are there any guidelines that state Wikipedia will not cover every blogger. And, on a side note (since you included the link above) this particular section is not advertisement. The terms used in your policies are general and some can be deemed subjective. However, if it is your unwritten policy to not allow materials based on authors that blog on social networking sites only (however, I still have the seen that in writing) then I will conclude that I have nothing else to offer (if you require links to other websites that spoke about/speak of this particular fictional character). --Madcowgunn (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:FICT. --Thetrick (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. "Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." --Madcowgunn (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I sympathize with the article creator's attachment to the subject, but Myspace simply isn't a reliable source here, and the character isn't notable under any criteria I can identify. Townlake (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so while it's certainly "possible that this character will become more main stream in the future" the article should be created when that happens and not before. - Dravecky (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete personally, i think it would be speedyable as web content without any even plausible assertion of notability. Myspace is not publication, nd thats why we have speedy for such content, which we dont for published works. DGG (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point that I hadn't thought of. I'll keep that in mind when I patrol new pages from now on. Thanks! Rnb (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per above references to existing policy. Wiki is not a crystal ball, a blog, a social networking site, or a directory. doktorb _words^deeds 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, simply because of notability concerns. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NN _{Wiki11790  talk}   01:27, 27 June 2008 (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.