Dark Complected Man – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dark Complected Man (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Plenty of sources exist,[1] debate had low participation and revolved around false points (There is no proper noun entitled "Dark Complected Man" in any reliable sources). I discussed with closing admin[2] — goethean 19:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Not a very well attended AfD, so I'm not adverse to relisting, especially if new sources come to light. That said, your link to a books search isn't hugely helpful--many of those are self-published sources (WP:SPS). Could you list the reliable sources which use this phrase? Without new and solid sourcing, DRV will almost certainly endorse this close. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] W.W. Norton,[3] Univ. of Tennessee Press,[4] Counterpoint Press,[5] Open Court Publishing [6]. — goethean 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] That's not a lot to hang an article on and the general objections of the AfD don't seem to be overcome. And given that a Google search of the term only has a JFK-related link in 2 of the first 10, I don't even see how a redirect is warranted here (generally a pretty low bar). Hobit (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] When I search on the exact phrase, I get lots of related hits.[7] — goethean 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] WP:GOOGLEHITS can turn up reams of conspiracy material. That doesn't mean those sources are reliable, or that something is notable enough for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] If you look above my comment to the comment that I replied to, you will find that I was not making an argument based on Google hits, but that I was replying to a claim made by User:Hobit (And given that a Google search of the term only has a JFK-related link in 2 of the first 10, I don't even see how a redirect is warranted here). — goethean 00:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] OK, well, it's unclear what this article, if kept, would contain. The sources above mention that someone named Carr testified he saw a dark complected man somewhere. That's really not enough for a stand alone article, unless we deem conspiracy books and webpages trustworthy or reliable, and little chance we're going to do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Interesting, I guess I just didn't use quotes. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have temporarily restored the article for review. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] The few sources that are not self-published give only trivial mention to the "dark complected man". Furthermore, three of the sources briefly refer to a guy driving a Nash Rambler on November 22, 1963 while the other one refers to a guy in a 57 Chevy seven and a half months earlier. The only way to connect these accounts is through WP:SYNTH. Pointing out that there is no proper noun entitled "Dark Complected Man" is a valid point because it refutes the idea that one can take trivial descriptions from less than a handful of reliable sources and make them seem as though they are talking about one particular person. "Oswald Look Alike" gets tons more hits, but that one would meet the same fate. Location (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] comment. The article was about "one particular person": the person sitting next to the Umbrella Man. The content seems to have been spun off from the Umbrella Man article, and could be reintegrated into it. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Looks like a reasonable close to me. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse though a redirect is probably appropriate given that the phrase is largely associated with the JFK assassination. Redirects are cheap. Hobit (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I think the analysis was thorough enough to determine that Wikipedia is simply not equipped to delve into this particular idea with a separate article. jps (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Having looked at the Ghits I don't think there is anything sufficiently substantial as RS to justify a stand-alone page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dark Complected Man – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Plenty of sources exist,[1] debate had low participation and revolved around false points (There is no proper noun entitled "Dark Complected Man" in any reliable sources). I discussed with closing admin[2] — goethean 19:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very well attended AfD, so I'm not adverse to relisting, especially if new sources come to light. That said, your link to a books search isn't hugely helpful--many of those are self-published sources (WP:SPS). Could you list the reliable sources which use this phrase? Without new and solid sourcing, DRV will almost certainly endorse this close. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W.W. Norton,[3] Univ. of Tennessee Press,[4] Counterpoint Press,[5] Open Court Publishing [6]. — goethean 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a lot to hang an article on and the general objections of the AfD don't seem to be overcome. And given that a Google search of the term only has a JFK-related link in 2 of the first 10, I don't even see how a redirect is warranted here (generally a pretty low bar). Hobit (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I search on the exact phrase, I get lots of related hits.[7] — goethean 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS can turn up reams of conspiracy material. That doesn't mean those sources are reliable, or that something is notable enough for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above my comment to the comment that I replied to, you will find that I was not making an argument based on Google hits, but that I was replying to a claim made by User:Hobit (And given that a Google search of the term only has a JFK-related link in 2 of the first 10, I don't even see how a redirect is warranted here). — goethean 00:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, it's unclear what this article, if kept, would contain. The sources above mention that someone named Carr testified he saw a dark complected man somewhere. That's really not enough for a stand alone article, unless we deem conspiracy books and webpages trustworthy or reliable, and little chance we're going to do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I guess I just didn't use quotes. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have temporarily restored the article for review. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The few sources that are not self-published give only trivial mention to the "dark complected man". Furthermore, three of the sources briefly refer to a guy driving a Nash Rambler on November 22, 1963 while the other one refers to a guy in a 57 Chevy seven and a half months earlier. The only way to connect these accounts is through WP:SYNTH. Pointing out that there is no proper noun entitled "Dark Complected Man" is a valid point because it refutes the idea that one can take trivial descriptions from less than a handful of reliable sources and make them seem as though they are talking about one particular person. "Oswald Look Alike" gets tons more hits, but that one would meet the same fate. Location (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The article was about "one particular person": the person sitting next to the Umbrella Man. The content seems to have been spun off from the Umbrella Man article, and could be reintegrated into it. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Looks like a reasonable close to me. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse though a redirect is probably appropriate given that the phrase is largely associated with the JFK assassination. Redirects are cheap. Hobit (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I think the analysis was thorough enough to determine that Wikipedia is simply not equipped to delve into this particular idea with a separate article. jps (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Having looked at the Ghits I don't think there is anything sufficiently substantial as RS to justify a stand-alone page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.