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 no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowzilla[edit]

Snowzilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to me non-notable and non-encyclopedic. As I said previously on the talk page, I just don't see how a really big snowman that some guy built in his yard should be in the encyclopedia, even if the local newspaper covered it and the story got picked up by the wire services. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunncon13 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 March 2010

• Weak keep - while technically properly sourced, I don't know if it's notable enough. Bearian (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was my main concern, not the sources. I didn't think it met the criteria for news events. Although I would also point out that only one source is reliable third party. Source number 2, boston.com, is a broken link. A search of the boston.com website reveals nothing about Snowzilla. Source number 3 is the Snowzilla website itself. OK, but questionable as self-published since it's 50% of the (working) sources. Dunncon13 (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As silly as it is, this snowman has garnered notoriety,and has been covered in press beyond its own locality of Anchorage, and that coverage has been sustained over multiple years. See MSNBC Dec 2005, Anchorage Daily, dec 2006, Washington Post, Jan 2007, Seattle Times, Dec 2008, Charlotte Observer, Dec 2008, Alaska Dispatch, Dec 2009.

Note that every one of those sources, other than the local ones, used an AP wire service article. All those papers picked up the AP story precisely because it WAS silly, not because it was important. Dunncon13 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - All of these newspapers exercise editorial control over their content. They don't print every single news service item that comes across the wire. If it only happened one year, then it'd be a blip of coverage. But this coverage has been sustained over multiple years. As such this is notable silliness. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the coverage annually recurring, rather than sustained. WP:EVENT says nothing about annual events. Snowzilla is an annual event, not notable in my view, but one that generates a flurry of coverage, so to speak, every year. An annual event is more likely to be notable than a one-time thing, I admit, but obviously there are non-notable annual events. For annual events, lasting effects should have to be something beyond just yearly news coverage of the event itself. Dunncon13 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call the coverage what you will. I think that's getting into the realm of semantic hair splitting. If one reviews the general notability guidelines, one can see that there is significant coverage' as these news reports feature Snowzilla as the primary subject; the coverage is reliable coming from established newspapers with a reputation for editorial integrity; the sources are secondary being newspapers and not a direct report on the event; they are independent of the subject as these news items are not written by the person making Snowzilla. This meets the the guidelines for general notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do not intend to split semantic hairs, but I think this is perhaps the heart of the matter. I will agree that the general notability guidelines look like this should be a keep. But the event notability guidelines are more relevant because we are dealing with something that, if notable, is notable only because it has been in the news. Without news coverage, a series of big snowmen would clearly not merit an article. It's an annual news event, so the nature of the news coverage is the central question. From the events notability page, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Somewhat at odds with the general notability guidelines. Coverage WAS reliable and independent. But it wasn't sustained - it was temporary and not significant. Snowzilla happened multiple times, but each time the coverage was temporary - "during or immediately after" the event. Furthermore, say the event guidelines, "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows." None of that kind of coverage took place. Dunncon13 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already noted above, the event guidelines really speak to single events. A recurring event receiving recurring coverage would be notable as this is not just a flash in the pan. It is noted by newspapers, over and over again over time. Perhaps the difficulty for you is that this thing is admittedly silly, and in the whole scheme of life, the universe, and everything, it isn't at all important. Notability is somewhat related to importance, but as cautioned in our notability guidelines, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject..." We can all agree that it isn't important. But the fact the coverage keeps occurring each year indicates it is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mind that the thing itself is silly. I do think it's silly to have an encyclopedia article about it, but that's only because I don't think it meets the standards. Maybe it would be helpful for someone to think about event notability guidelines as they might pertain to annual events. Sure, annual recurrence increases likelihood of notability, but it doesn't automatically guarantee notability, does it? That kind of sounds like what you're saying: "coverage occurring every year indicates it is notable." I'm not so sure that's true. Dunncon13 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NOT TABLOID. This is the sort of human interest story that is not encyclopedic. Perhaps the GNG is becoming an handicap to rational evaluation. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Weak delete - Not notable. As discussed in the WP:EVENT guidelines, without lasting significance, the news coverage doesn't mean much. Shock or "silly" news stories, absent any indication of some kind of historical significance, don't contribute to the notability of the subject. --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standing the test of time is established with sustained coverage over time. This silly snowman has had that sustained coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated annual coverage != sustained coverage. There's no analysis, commentary, or other thoughtful discussion in any of the sources I was able to find - it's all "oh hai a giant snowman". If someone can find any reliable source that asserts that this snowman has some kind of significance to the culture of the U.S., Alaska, or even just Anchorage, I'll happily revise my opinion. That being said, a deeper read of some of the sources does mention that it also made international news (New York Daily News cites Russia and Japan), so I've revised to "weak delete" - the fact that it also made an international splash makes it somewhat more likely to pass the test of time, but I still don't think it's truly notable. --Darkwind (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to disagree on what constitutes sustained coverage. As for impact to Anchorage, the articles provides documentation that "camera crews from Russia and Japan filmed the temporary sculpture", and caused sufficient traffic problems in the area to generate a cease-and-desist order from the municiap government. I'll grant that it's not world shaking impact, but most things aren't. And with the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, stuff like Solstice Cyclists also aren't that impactful, and garner yearly coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources is apparent. Regarding DGG's comment that "perhaps the GNG is becoming an handicap to rational evaluation" - while I agree with the sentiment at a superficial level and it pains me to have human interest guff on wikipedia, it is not for us to judge what is worthy of coverage. We have to apply objective standards, rather than subjective judgements like "tabloid" and "human interest", for determining what articles are appropriate for inclusion, and the GNG is the best objective standard possible. This has received ongoing coverage in reliable sources. That makes it encyclopaedic, whether we like it or not. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2010 (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.