Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howie scream

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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howie scream

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

This is an article about a stock scream sound effect less notable than the Wilhelm scream, created by a user now indef-blocked for long term abuse. Having pruned the unsourced and unreliable sourced content (the main source was formerly a Freewebs site), what we have is a "ten sound effects" list that says this is not even an official name for this sound effect. To use a term of art not so much seen on AfD these days, this is fancruft. A trivium that falls below the level of serious attention in reliable sources. It might mention a very short sentence in an article on stock sound effects, no more. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to be the second most famous movie scream and does have some other sources: News-Gazette (Illinois)[1], Vice[2], What Culture[3], Computer Music Guide[4] - but the latter in particular is possibly not a reliable source by our standards. Not quite sure that meets WP:GNG, and a merge somewhere would be nice, if possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Lekosky article provided by Colapeninsula is written by a guy who appears to be an expert in his field, and provides significant coverage of the subject. I'm not confident this is the most encyclopedic topic ever, but I think it squeaks by GNG. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:37, 29 April 2014 (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.