Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcyclist)

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 Penance Stare... um... delete. Keep arguments did not give sources to verify information to my knowledge. Marvel reference necessary. lifebaka++ 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist)

This was prodded a long time ago, apparently (article dates to Nov. 2005), and while the prod was removed, notability of the subject is not established by reliable sources. Looking at the talk page, it's all "sourced" through Google video and blogs. The article itself uses nothing but the rider's own site as external links. All the material he has appeared in is self-released. GHits are this article as #1, followed by YouTube and blogs. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is easy, verifiability obviously harder for someone so deliberately secretive. In the absence of any suggestion that Ghost Rider isn't genuine, I'd say we're adequately covered as it is. Obviously anything better would be welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete only ghits found were for the videos and random blogs, little actual discussion. Videos appear to viral on the internet (though I did find some on DVD) perhaps it could be merged into viral videos. SOL Basic 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Those sorts of riding feats are pretty incredible. Then again, they're illegal. Should we create a page for everyone who does increbible, but illegal, activities? Would an article about such create the illusion that Wikipedia at least tacitly condones such activities? If a TV station were to pick up this guys videos or make a real movie about them, then it'd be notable, but as cool as those videos are, they haven't even really spread virally to the various viral video sites on the web. Until it does, or some other notable company picks them up and promotes them, it just isn't notable enough (plus it's illegal). Banaticus (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. We should keep this article if and only if we can find reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. If such sources exist, hopefully we should be able to write a neutral article about him that doesn't make anyone think that opinions expressed about him by other people reflect the views of Wikipedia. I don't know whether we have such sources yet, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete although widespread as far as video content goes, without the verifiability aspect the article fails our policies and guidelines for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete via Jasynnash2, sounds like a ripoff off Knight Rider --Numyht (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A viral video/meme etc. that amounts to a popular but unstable subject for biography. I.e. you can't write a biography of a screen name, of a pseudonym, or a joke. You have to have some there, there. Without a studio or some other stable corporate essence standing behind this name, we don't have anything to describe. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"you can't write a biography of a pseudonym" Interesting point, but we seem to manage with The Stig. It's also likely that Ghost Rider is really one person and the Stigs are really multiple, suggesting that biostiggery would be the harder target. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While mentioned above, the Stig is a secret person, he is featured on a legal and sourcefull content. You can go to Top Gear and ask about him. Ghost Rider on the other hand, is an unofficial and illegal figure, and you don't have any legal and credible sources to cite. He is a myth, and the only real "credible" evidence he exists are 5 DVD's, distributed illegaly and under the table. Fukla (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sorry, I must have read you wrong because if the only "credible" evidence of existence (much less notability) is basically unobtainable that would imply to me that he fails our verifiability policies yet, you are using that rationale to argue for Keeping the article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable. We also have Captain Swing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand that ""unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable" the issue is also one of verifiability (which is the one I was trying to address for the new user). Captain Swing is simply other stuff and doesn't really have any bearing on this particular article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "distributed illegaly and under the table", the dvds are sold in Australia legally. I have worked in a shop that sells the dvds without any sort of dodgy dealing. I'm not sure if he's notable however. 58.161.194.228 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I remember Ghost Rider got atleast some [1] national media coverage when the first DVD was released. And the myth about him is quite widespread in Sweden. Cleanup is needed however. bbx (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (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.