Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatsuit

Fatsuit

Fatsuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a dictionary. As far as I can see, this is just a dictionary term. No reason for an article. — Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Description of an uncommon physical object, complete with examples of how it is used? Sounds like a keep to me - this is well beyond a dictionary definition, even as a stub. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, for usage/references see e.g. [1], [2]. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The second reference does not count, as it is not independent from the subject.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's hardly commonplace, but that's why we need an encyclopedia to explain it to us. Shallow Hal alone should be adequate justification for notability and WP:RS. Expansion please though, especially some photographs! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note Please see, notability is not inherited. Of the current explanations of why this subject is notable, I see none. It's an item used in movies for special effects, since that is the argument you are using for notability concerns, should we have an entire article on a specific type of lens filter?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

should we have an entire article on a specific type of lens filter?
Oooh, please do! Are you a cinematographer? This would be great, there are so many interesting filter effects around, it would be great to expand encyclopedic coverage of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, to rephrase, should we really have an article about every piece of equipment used in movie-making? I really don't think so. Secondly, those of you arguing that this topic is notable. Where is notability stated? I don't see any sources or claims of notability in the article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

should we really have an article about every piece of equipment used in movie-making
That would be so cool! Subject of course to WP:N 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Note Did you even read the policy you cited? Try WP:GNG, there is no amount of significant reliable sources independent from the subject matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

... You haven't been here very long, have you? Why don't you take some time to read up on policy, and it is not my job to fix it, it is the job of the creator of the article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The content is encyclopedic, notable and useful for readers. There is no reason to delete it. Theres every reason to keep it. Mythdon (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Zetawoof said it all. It looks like the snow is melting.--Pmedema (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep fairly common special effects technique. Current article is a little on the weak side but should be fixable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Big Fat Keep The subject is notable, but the article needs a clean-up. Can anyone get a photo to run with this? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question To all those voting to keep on the claim that the subject is notable, I do not see any sources claiming such, nor is there an assertion in the beginning line that the subject is notable, so, if you would, please describe how it is notable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• You know, I'm not sure why I created this AfD, now that I look at the article, it appears to fall under CSD A7, and 80% of the people that posted keep here haven't come back to respond or discuss. AfDs are about discussion, not voting, that's why it isn't called votes for deletion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)