Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConFusion (All My Children)

:{{la|ConFusion (All My Children)}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Delete - prod disputed with the addition of the "cultural impact" section. There do not appear to be reliable sources that attest to the real-world notability of this fictional nightclub. The notability of the show does not impart notability to every aspect of it. The "cultural impact" section, besides being dubiously sourced by trivial mentions in what appear to be gossip columns, does not establish that the fictional club is notable. Otto4711 12:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, The article is well-written and has multiple sources to verify the claims presented in the article. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:*The quality of the writing is not at issue here. Neither is the factual accuracy. What is under discussion here is whether the subject of the article passes notability guidelines, which require independent reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. The items serving as references here do not qualify as reliable sources and are not substantially about the subject. Otto4711 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- Wikipedia is more so about notability. And the fact remains that the references in this article prove this fictional nightclub's notability. Plain and simple. Stating substantial coverage doesn't always factor in, yes, even if an editor does cite that policy. When an article proves notability from multiple reliable sources, that is just as noteworthy notability as having the references be completely about the title of that article. And I don't have a problem with pointing out that most of the other fictional bars in Category:Fictional bars and inns don't even provide notability or attempt to provide notability, while this article does. Citing that I shouldn't bring up "but other stuff similar to this exists on Wikipedia" in a deletion debate doesn't keep from stating that either, especially since this article does provide notability. Furthermore, it's a fictional business. While we cite that all articles on Wikipedia should provide notability, most articles on fictional characters or fictional objects from a show don't, or don't seem to need to (as witnessed from most editors here at Wikipedia not nominating those articles for deletion), since they are from a notable show. We have mutiple fictional character articles on Wikipedia, with most not stating that character's cultural impact on the world, their notability, so while we shouldn't state that something is notable due to its relation to its un-disputed notable topic, fictional character articles are mostly all like that on Wikipedia, thought of as notable because they come from a notable show. I don't see any difference with this article on that front, accept that the topic of this article is notable. The references in this article, regardless, cite that this fictional nightclub was able to acquire several notable celebrities. If that's not notable for a fictional nightclub, then it's difficult to name what else is, other than having that fictional nightclub reported on CNN. Flyer22 19:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:*The references in the article consist of: [http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/23/tv/main1747447.shtml a four-sentence blurb about Rihanna's appearance] that does not discuss any significance of the club; [http://cw11.trb.com/news/local/morningnews/wpix-ambios03-emilyfrances,0,6991025.htmlstory a biography for Emily Frances] that notes her AMC appearance in a single sentence and does not mention the club; [http://www.radioandrecords.com/Formats/News/AC_News.asp a gossipy column] that includes only a single sentence that even mentions the club; and [http://www.elle.com/TheWeekInFashion/8924/meryl-streep-and-anne-hathaway-june-23-2006.html another gossipy column] that mentions the club in a single sentence. I am sorry, but these simply do not, in any possible way, constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact that some celebrities did cameos on the show does not establish the notability of the club, as the notability of the celebrities cannot be inherited by the club. WP:FICT, under which articles on fictional characters falls, states that a separate article for a fictional topic within a work of fiction is warranted "[i]f these concepts are by themselves notable (meaning they include substantial real-world information...) and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long...." Since the club is not notable, WP:FICT does not support the existence of this article. Otto4711 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:*Those columns state the truth, not some gossip columns spreading around rumors or speculation. The references within this article are all from independent reliable sources. And one is even from The Associated Press, which is certainly reliable, and, yes, it mentions Rihanna's musical performance -- her musical performance at this fictional nightclub. I'm sorry (actually, I'm not), but having seen most other fictional club or inn articles on Wikipedia, this one is certainly one of the most notable out of all of them. Several celebrities at this fictional nightclub does make this fictional nightclub notable. Citing Wikipedia policy to me that I know by heart, even if you feel that I don't know it by heart, doesn't make me feel any less strongly on this matter. Emily Frances' mention on this show can easily be exchanged with one that mentions this club, though I don't feel that it needs to be exchanged. It's obvious that her appearance on this show was for the opening of this fictional nightclub, unless someone figures that she guest starred on All My Children more than once. Rihanna singing at the opening of this nightclub, plus several celebrities at this nightclub, yes, that's notable for a fictional nightclub. Flyer22 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::*Can you please explain what part of the phrase substantially about the subject is giving you so much trouble? Notability requires sources that are substantially about the subject of the article. One-sentence mentions in longer articles are not substantially about the subject.

::*The existence of other articles has no bearing on whether or not this article should exist. This article, like every article, needs to meet relevant policies and guidelines. In the absence of reliable sources that are substantially about the subject this article does not meet the guideline of notability. Otto4711 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't start this insulting-mess with me again, Otto. Can you please explain what part of my comment above where I state, "Citing that I shouldn't bring up 'but other stuff similar to this exists on Wikipedia' in a deletion debate doesn't keep from stating that either, especially since this article does provide notability" doesn't point out that I already know of the policy called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here at Wikipedia? I know what substantial coverage means, as several well-respected Wikipedians can attest to with an article I created here at Wikipedia. I stand by my statements that this fictional nightclub is notable and that it being mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources as having acquired the celebrities in which it has acquired proves its notability for a fictional nightclub. Flyer22 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:*I'm sorry, but I honestly can't make heads or tails out of your sentence that begins "Can you please explain..." so no, I really can't explain because I have no idea what you're asking. If you know what "substantially about the subject" means then I have to wonder why you continue to insist that these passing references in any way establish the notability of the club. Otto4711 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::*I can't explain what you don't get about notability either. These "passing" references are are multiple, and they prove the notability of this fictional nightclub. Citing that it should be substantial, well, that doesn't make me feel that this fictional nightclub is any less notable. Flyer22 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:::*OK, see, there we have the crux of your failure of understanding. Quoting again from WP:N: Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. A passing reference is not more than trivial. A handful of passing references do not add up to notability. I'm sorry that you don't think that substantial coverage should be required to establish notability, but fortunately the strong consensus on WIkipedia is that substantiality is required. Otto4711 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, there we have the crux of your condescending attitude in most AfD debates. And there you go again in this AfD debate putting words into my mouth. Nowhere did I state that I feel that substantial coverage should not be a requirement of inclusion for an article on Wikipedia. I was more so pointing out that this is not always the case in deletion debates on Wikipedia. I know what WP:N is, and you can point it out to me as much as you want to, but it will not change my view that a fictional nightclub being mentioned in several reliable independent sources as having acquired several celebrities within its setting proves its notability. And one editor above already seems to feel this article is suited for Wikipedia inclusion as well. We agree on that matter. You don't agree with us; it's been noted. Now we'll see how this deletion debate goes. Flyer22 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:* A simple mention is not substantial. Several simple mentions are not substantial. Otto4711 23:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't put words into my mouth. We clearly disagree on matters of this deletion debate. Time to move on. Flyer22 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per lack of significant coverage from real world sources Corpx 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, the sources in the "Cultural impact" section are sufficient to establish notability. Otto's reading of WP:N seems too restrictive to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:*How exactly is it too restrictive to read "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." as meaning that a source that does not mention the article's subject by name does not establish the subject's notability? How is it too restrictive to think that a passing mention in a single sentence of a much longer piece does not constitute significant coverage? I don't think it's really that much to ask that there be a source that's about ConFusion before there be an article about ConFusion. Otto4711 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All the sources are at best tangential to this fictional nightclub. Most of them are primarily about celebrities doing cameos in All My Children, and not about the nightclub or how it is important in the real world. --Phirazo 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources providing coverage of the club are given. Nuttah68 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would argue, Phirazo, that the sources within this article are about this fictional nightclub. They are not basically about celebrities doing cameos on the show All My Children, but are rather about celebrities coming to the fictional town of Pine Valley of the show All My Children just to be at the opening of this fictional nightclub; that's the reason that they showed up there. Regardless, this article is not an article that I'm all too concerned with. I have other matters to attend to, of course, as we all do. I was more so about "voicing" my thoughts on this subject than truly being passionate about this article. Flyer22 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Also, most of this information can go into Kendall Hart Slater's article. I'll do that, if this article is deleted, and that way, this information will still exist on Wikipedia, but in a location just as good. Flyer22 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

: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.