Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon lark

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon lark

Vanity page, minimal notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Fails~~
~~WP:ENTERTAINER at best. §FreeRangeFrog 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Keep - Reversing, much different article now. §FreeRangeFrog 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." --User:MichaelQSchmidt. I did what the above editors were unwilling to do, I found several more references, establishing this editors notability. Including two articles in Fangoria, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Fearnet.
talk) 11:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as improved.
talk) 10:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for lack of multiple reliable sources. Ikip: Fangoria and Fearnet, being
reliable sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

You forgot San Francisco Chronicle? Self published?

Fangoria is THE largest horror magazine: "Fangoria is an internationally-distributed US film fan magazine specializing in the genres of horror, slasher, splatter and exploitation films, in regular publication since 1979." it is NOT self published.

Fearnet is, "FEARnet is a multi-platform horror network created by Lionsgate, Comcast, and Sony Pictures Entertainment. " has contracts with comcast, showing all of the horror movies on Comcast's ondemand, it is NOT self published. A two minute search of these sources would reveal this.

If editors focused on finding resources more than they did memorizing acronyms to support deletion, wikipedia would be that much better.

talk) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

STRONGEST Keep and tag for cleanup to address pov and expansion to make encyclopddic. SPS is misquoted here, as they are NOT published by Shannon Lark, and are pubications from experts in the field qualified to voice their opinion. Further, Ikip simply shared the tip of a very LARGE iceberg. You won't find Shannon lark on the front page of
Barrack Obama being written up on Fangora. Sources must be considered in context to what is being sourced. And, since other sources are available, wikipedia would be improved by the article being improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Update I just spent a very few minutes doing a cursory search and cannot see how the nom could have missed the dozens upon dozens upon dozens of sources. I did a bit of copyedit to the article. It needs more help, but its a definite keeper. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}`
Keep IMDB entry, SF Chronicle interview, notability established for me The Steve 21:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And no one is saying that the IMDB entry confers notability.... only that it
WP:Verifies the other many sources as part of the overall encylopedic aspect of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

keep The SF Chronicle article establishes notability, I have pipelinked some of the films in the article, the directed to the wrong place (the wound up being redlinks). Nice work on the improvement.--kelapstick (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets
talk) 02:47, 13 February 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.