Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Ness

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. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Ness

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

Questionable notability Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 106 Google News entries, in which he's defined as a "legend of reggae" or even "a living legend" (see here). Enough for me to substain a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be a straight translation from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm of the view that Wikipedia is two things — a serious encyclopedia and a pop culture compendium. The former needs tight inclusion guidelines and the latter benefits from comprehensiveness and less obsession with so-called "reliable sources." Deletion nominations should be looked at from the perspective of the Rule of Reason — 1. Is the information accurate? 2. Is the encyclopedia better off with the piece or without it? In this case: yes and keep. In the anticipation that such thinking will offend the rules-loving types who proliferate at WP, I point out that IAR is a policy and Notability Guidelines are just that. (And no, don't waste your time pointing me to an opinion essay describing how the number 4 is actually > 5, a policy is higher level WP doctrine than a guideline.) In short this argument in favor of using a rule of reason is policy-based... That said, this article is a mess and somebody needs to format it correctly... Carrite (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (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.