Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaze (UAB mascot)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blaze (UAB mascot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not meet WP:GNG a google and GNews search can only find trivial or primary sources. Suggest merge into parent article. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The news search created by the AfD template is almost always going to fail when an article has a disambiguated title like this. Try one of these instead: [1], [2], [3]. The article doesn't even contain the most encyclopedic and WP:N information on this subject yet--when the UAB first selected a mascot named "Blaze" in 1993, it was a helmeted Norseman, who caused a PC controvery for being "too Aryan." That controversy received non-trivial, national coverage in respected newspapers and has resulted in repeated references in the years since. This information belongs in the existing article--it would almost certainly not fit as well into any potential parent articles.--Hjal (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ive looked through a lost of the sources that came up on your search they are similar to what i found and i feel was mostly trivial one or two a little bit better. However do you have a source for the part you feel should be in the article as if that has good sources and along with what i have found it may meet GNG and i will withdraw the nomination.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some examples of the coverage of the 1993 mascot controversy (some paywalled):Orlando Sentinel[4], Chicago Tribune[5], Seattle Times[6], Baltimore Sun[7], Washington Post[8], Greensboro News & Record[9], Lexington Herald-Leader[10], Washington Times[11], St. Petersburg Times[12].--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ive looked through a lost of the sources that came up on your search they are similar to what i found and i feel was mostly trivial one or two a little bit better. However do you have a source for the part you feel should be in the article as if that has good sources and along with what i have found it may meet GNG and i will withdraw the nomination.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial sources. Nothing worth merging--GrapedApe (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the sources pass WP:GNG, you are arguing that the topic is nonetheless not WP:N "worthy of notice". But what about Template:C-USA_Mascots, are you only going to remove one of those articles? Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 27 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, BusterD (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, without prejudice to possible editorial decision to merge/redirect to UAB Blazers#Mascots. Enough sources to show notability, but it might be better to incorporate the material in the main article along with material about UAB's other mascots. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, subject meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination Withdrawn, above sources show does meet GNG. However i do feel it should be merged into main article but that can be discussed later.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:50, 27 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.