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. Rlevse 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man-Faye[edit]

Man-Faye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate material is the reason for this nomination. Tony Cruze Haize 10:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC) — Tony Cruze Haize (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Previous nominations:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye - no consensus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (2nd nomination) - keep

• Comment I completed the listing of this afd. I don't have much of an opinion about the article, but this is the third afd for Man-Faye within a year, and the second afd was also irregularly listed. The nominator seems to be more-or-less a single-purpose account. Darkspots 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Darkspots 15:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
• Delete - only one reference; only other links are to his own site and MySpace. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources per WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonencyclopedic topic. Kyaa the Catlord 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BIO failure. GassyGuy 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it already. Now having read the previous deletion discussions (both linked to on the article talk page), I think that the television appearances, although not references per se, satisfy WP:BIO (name recognition) and meet the standards of WP:V. The argument has been made several times that he is the most notable American cosplayer, in terms of media coverage--and that hasn't up to now been refuted in a convincing way. I knew nothing about Cosplay until I stumbled across this afd, and I think Man-Faye puts the entire phenomenon into context for the general reader, much more colorfully than the main article. I also think there should be a strong bias against a third afd in a year, particularly when the second one was argued at length. Darkspots 15:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - see also WP:POINT. Snarfies 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is a WP:POINT violation, it's a pretty unclear one. What point is trying to be made? I grant that it appears to be a single-purpose account, but I don't understand the POINT accusation. Please assume good faith. GassyGuy 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes WP:BIO though I'm surprised that his Who Wants to Be a Superhero? and The Tonight Show appearances are only mentioned but not actually referenced. --Farix (Talk) 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I had doubts, but I followed the refs and links to see it was actually N. DGG 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on the article description, neither the Sci Fi thing or The Tonight Show were non-trivial coverage of him - those are things about which there should be coverage for inclusion in the article in the first place. There's exactly one reference here, and the site is of questionable reliability. I'm not sure that would clearly pass WP:BIO or WP:N. GassyGuy 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The multiple television appearances are enough for me. --- RockMFR 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Farix. --Ifrit 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the third ****ing time, let it be. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:BIO and has been up for discussion before. bbx 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:BIO if only for his fan following... but it needs more WP:RS. McKay 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the same reasons raised in the 2nd nomination just six months ago; the subject is well known within his niche, the internet at large, and has made several cable network television appearances as well. Never mind that this is a bad faith nom made by a fly-by-night account created solely for stirring up this debate once more. RFerreira 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Being "known within one's niche" is not a notability criterion, nor is having fans, nor is simply "appearing" on television. Being nominated before is not a keep criterion. If this is sourceable to reliable sources, why have none been added to the article in all this time? As has been noted, this isn't the first time it's been brought to deletion - how many times should we say "keep but source" when sources are not forthcoming? GassyGuy 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for multiple non-trivial TV appearances, which can be verified by watching the shows. –Pomte 00:50, 4 March 2007 (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.