Talk:Never Miss a Super Bowl Club/Archives/2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Speedy tag
This tag has been placed on the talk page in error - that is why I removed it. I did not create the content page thus my removal of the tag is/was not in error. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- As a note, the article does establish its A7 notability as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that-I was using twinkle and tried to propose deletion for notability, but accidentally hit speedy deletion-I'll renominate as proposed deletion. 68.32.87.200 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Skrelk (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. I'd argue that the subject is notable, though - having attended every championship game for 44+ years? That takes dedication. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I proposed it normally. I respectfully disagree with you there, though. All their media coverage is derived from the advertising campaign. A lot of people do things that take dedication, doesn't mean they deserve an entire article. If they had been reported in some more major media sources, and were known for reasons other than advertising, I wouldn't have proposed deletion though.Skrelk (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say both The Los Angeles Times and Fox Sports qualify as major media sources. I've removed the prod on that basis - no offence, I hope! - if this is to be deleted or merged it should be discussed at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I proposed it normally. I respectfully disagree with you there, though. All their media coverage is derived from the advertising campaign. A lot of people do things that take dedication, doesn't mean they deserve an entire article. If they had been reported in some more major media sources, and were known for reasons other than advertising, I wouldn't have proposed deletion though.Skrelk (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. I'd argue that the subject is notable, though - having attended every championship game for 44+ years? That takes dedication. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that-I was using twinkle and tried to propose deletion for notability, but accidentally hit speedy deletion-I'll renominate as proposed deletion. 68.32.87.200 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Skrelk (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Images
I understand that the free/fair-content guidelines say that fair-use images of living people are strongly discouraged due to the probability of free images either being available or becoming available. There is an exception, though, as I recall, which states that when the picture is of a nature that is highly unlikely to be repeated, or won't be repeated, and the event depicted is defining for the person(s), then a free-use image is permissible. This would be one of those cases, I think; the odds of their being a free-use image depecting all four members of the Club in the same photograph is very, very, very small. And it is likely impossible for one ever to be created in the future, as the fourth member of the Club has now missed a game and is unlikely to be making any public appearances due to his illness. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- They were together since 1967, weren't they? The probably of have a picture of them together is not "very, very, very small" at all. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- They've been attending every Super Bowl since 1967. The "Club", with the four of them together, has only been around since 2010. The picture isn't strictly necessary to the article, I suppose, but hopefully a free one can be turned up - but I wouldn't hold my breath, alas. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)