Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatsuit

:{{la|Fatsuit}} ([{{fullurl:Fatsuit|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatsuit}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(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. [http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/BeautySecrets/story?id=1280787], [http://www.costumzee.com/tag/fat+suit/]. --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)

::::::::Not your job to fix it? How is this reasoning valid for not fixing it?. Mythdon (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::It isn't my job to fix it, it is the job of the creator of the article. I'm here to get the article deleted, as it does not meet policy, I'm not here to fix it, I shouldn't have to explain why it isn't my job if you've been here long enough. When someone lists an article as having no sources, it is not that person's job to find sources, but the job of the one who wants the tag to go away, or the article to stay. It isn't my job.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::"it is the job of the creator of the article" I think you ought to think about how a collaborative wiki works, and in particular to read WP:OWN. If it's anyone's "job" to fix this this, it's either the person offended by the issue, or the community offended by its breach of a community-endorsed policy. You're not at work now, we don't have underlings that we schedule the work out to. The article is open to anyone to fix it - we've all (our personal time availability permitting) got the same opportunity. Fatsuits aren't rocket science, proving notability of an obviously existent concept isn't asking for much. If someone with an interest in film history wants to expand their history that would be great, likewise someone who works with costume or prosthetics wants to explain how you stuff them. (Oh, and I'm not that Andy Dingley - Wish I was sometimes, he gets much more fun!) Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I believe you need to re-read WP:OWN, as that is not the case that I am refering to. We all have our own views on things, but this, as stated previously, not my job. I am not going to argue my views with you, so how about you back off and stop throwing policies at me that you don't understand.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::To make it even more clear, you're saying that if I created an article which did not assert notability, nor did it have reliable sources, it would be your job to fix it? I think not.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::It is everybodys to fix it. or shall i say anybodys job?. There is no "it is not my job" on Wikipedia, period. Mythdon (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Again, wrong. Last time I checked, I don't control the actions of others, and neither do you, further, last time I checked, I acquired the it's not my job tidbit from a previous AfD. It is always the creator of the article's job to source said article, as, if they think it should be included here, they should state why and source it, not leave it to others, that would be discourteous.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::One last thing Do not argue with me about how I do things. This is a discussion on why or not this article should be deleted, not my editing habits. Keep on topic please, and address my questions which you have yet to answer, please.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:18, 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)

:: You really do need to reference those policies before citing them, "WP:CSD#A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion." Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep To save nominator any further embarrassment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• keep and I could add to this article if it isn't there already, ways in which a fatsuit is used in diet and weight loss programmes to show the client what they could end up looking like, etc. The nominator needs to read the wikimanual or something. Sticky Parkin 15:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep meets notability criteria, not much more to be said. Verbal chat 15:42, 26 September 2008 (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.