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. bibliomaniac15 02:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Stop Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No sufficient third-party sources, the site's only claim to fame is that it is owned by Kevin Smith and hosts his podcast SModcast. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete- In addition to what Cabinfeveraaron said below, I know far more people who have heard of Kevin Smith or Paul Dini then who have heard of a number of bands that have Wiki pages. Just because QuickStop Entertainment's media is made for the internet that makes it less deserving of a page then some local emo band with 10 fans? If Wiki wants to get taken seriously it needs to put petty stuff like this aside and embrace all submissions as long as the content is of value to someone, anyone, who may want to read it. --Dseabolt (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC) — Dseabolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• You're absolutely right. A TON of people have heard of Kevin Smith and Paul Dini. That's why they have their own pages. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. Just because the site has notable contributors does not mean the site itself is notable, unless someone can provide enough sources to prove otherwise, which so far does not seem to be likely. I've been looking, as have many other editors, but we still haven't found anything useful. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The site also hosts podcasts from lesser known people, as well as reviews on a whole spectrum of products. Its also where Kevin Smith debuted the trailer for his new movie. I'd say its at least as relevant as Ain't It Cool News, which has its own page. Is there a storage restraint on Wiki? I don't see how using a couple of megs for a QSE page is any more of a waste then a good 10% of whats currently on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dseabolt (talk • contribs) 07:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've said many times before, it does not have reliable sources. If an article does not have reliable sources, it's inclusion cannot be justified. Articles like Kevin Smith, Paul Dini and SModcast all have articles because there are sources that can be used to verify the subject's notability. With this article however, that isn't the case. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 07:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly determines notability? Heres a link to an interview QSE did with Steve Coogan whose film Hamlet 2 was a success at Cannes and debuts this weekend. Does this count? http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/2008/08/22/trailer-park-steve-coogan/ Its pretty much the same kind of stuff AICN runs, and like I pointed out, they are included.--Dseabolt (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to know what determines notability read Wikipedia's guidelines, you can specifically look here. --HELLØ ŦHERE 08:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In a world where AICN gets a page and QSE doesn't there is no logic, so I'm just gonna leave now. I've heard the outside world can be fun.--Dseabolt (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete- No, it's claim to fame is that it's contributors include Kevin Smith, Scott Mosier, Dana Snyder, Paul Dini, Christopher Stipp and Peter Sanderson all of whom are notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages. Please stop asking to delete pages that you have a personal vendeta against. This is a young page, it needs time to have its content filled. The whole point of an online dictionary is to be able to cross reference information. This page is relevent to 7 other different wikipedia articles therefore making it of note. --Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC) — Cabinfeveraaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete- I'm one of the members of the view Askew/Kevin Smith Wikiproject and even I believe this page should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, and this doesn't seem notable enough for an encyclopedia. Especially if people would like to see what "Quick Stop Entertainment" is, they can view the website. If you'd like to possibly create this page in the future once you have non-Kevin Smith related references, make it a subpage or sandbox and work on it. But I agree that this article should be deleted. --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Of course it's not a dictionary. We're are not listing the meaning of words. Have you not heard of Paul Dini? Dana Snyder? Christopher Stipp? Kevin Smith is not the only contributor. Please could you read the article in future.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabinfeveraaron (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- "The whole point of an online dictionary is..." These are your exact words. Which is why I said that. And I didn't say it was only Kevin Smith. I just don't agree that this should be an article because I don't believe it is notable. --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- It also seems by the content listed in the article and your username that you have a biased towards this article and its contents. (What I mean by this is the "Cabin Fever" and "Cabin Fever Aaron".) --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not saying I am notable, I am not looking for a page for myself. I am saying that this website is mentioned on 7 other pages for individuals who are considered notable. These notable people are contributors to the site so I believe it is a notable article. I can edit my name out of the page if it makes you feel comfortable. It doesnt change the status of the website.--Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cabinfeveraaron , I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of nominating articles because of some nonexistent "vendetta". I am a huge fan of both Kevin Smith and SModcast, but that has to stay separate of my editing on Wikipedia. The article does not cite any reliable third-party sources, and the site itself does not meet WP:WEB. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Is Kevin Smith (the nom spelled it wrong) notable? Yes he is. Is this? unsure (remember, notability is not inherited), but i'd love to see some reliable sources of its mention somewhere else that isn't connected to Smith (newspapers, other websites etc.)) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this article in the Austin Chronicle proof enough?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A388487 --192.156.110.33 (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That could possibly be used as one source, and it seems third party, but one reference cannot build an article. --HELLØ ŦHERE 10:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As mentioned previously, this article is barely a week old. These references can be found. It just requires time.--192.156.110.33 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another third party reference has been added to account Quick Stops history with the MPAA http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/06/06/kevin-smiths-zack-and-miri-teaser-pisses-off-the-mpaa/ --192.156.110.34 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Attempt I have made an attempt to clean up the page. It still isn't great, but it looks somewhat passable now. --HELLØ ŦHERE 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at the sources provided, I still don't feel like they're enough to justify the article. The Austin Chronicle only mentions the site, and the article itself is about Clerks II. The "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" site doesn't mention the site aside from linking to it, the IDW page doesn't mention it at all, the People.com story is about Matt Damon, it doesn't even BEGIN to mention Kevin Smith, let alone QSE, and the firstshowing.net link is talking about the trailer for Zack and Miri Make a Porno. It only mentions that it was hosted on QSE before it was taken down. The sources are trivial, and I've done some searching to try to find sources to help the article along, but I haven't found any substantial coverage yet. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply The only reason I added the People link was to have a reference that Sarah Silverman did the original video. And I do agree, I had just thought I'd try to help give the page a fighting chance. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a third party source which talks about the Quick Stop panel at Comic Con. It mentions its popularity among other things in the article. I would assume this would be a good reference to add. It came up on the first page in a google search. http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=16160 --Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You claim that the IDW page did not mention the site or Ryalls involvement http://www.idwpublishing.com/bios2.shtml I'll ammend the link in the article for those who are unable to find it from the main page. This page from Variety also mentions Ryall and Smiths involvement with the site. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117869172.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=%22chris+ryall%22 This too will be added.--Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct me if I am wrong (which I know some one will because some people have nothing better to do than correct Wikipedia) but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a repository of information. Wikipedia even more so because it is online and thus open to a wider amount of content. To delete any information seems wrong. In fact I seem to recall another group of individuals who tried to keep information they did not deem important from the public. They were called Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchbohan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) — Patchbohan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I'm not sure that I see the Nazi parallel, but that's fine. Actually, one of Wikipedia's policies is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Subjects must be proven to be notable as per Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. If a subject does not meet those criteria, then it is not notable enough to stay. If we were to subscribe to your school of thought. Wikipedia would be awash with useless articles. There has to be some system of checks and balances. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm calling you a Nazi Rwiggum because you seem to think it is your job to delete content YOU don't feel is notable. I agree there should be a system of checks and balances but you deleted a page before it was even up for a day. That's not checks and balances, that's just being a douche without too much time on his page. A lot more people care about Ken Plume, Snydecast, Smodcast and QuickstopEntertainment than all those stupid emo bands you make pages for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchbohan (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are personal attacks going to help your cause? It is not just Rwiggum, I have personally edited this page and I don't feel it is notable. And your use of Clerks quotes about Nazi's won't help your argument. --HELLØ ŦHERE 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your sentiments Patchbohan could you please at least keep this civil. I feel the only way to win an argument like this is to edit the page and improve it's chances. While I agree that this page shouldn't be deleted this is the only way to make sure it isnt. The likes of Cabinfeveraaron have done so, please try to imitate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.110.33 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I very much agree, which is why I also tried to improve the page, and if others feel it should be kept, they should edit it to improve its chances. If not, I'm fairly sure it will be deleted, as it still needs a lot of work. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When does something like this get decided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.110.33 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI I have recently created a personal sandbox located here, incase this article is deleted and it would like to be worked on. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we please close this debate now, I would like to think that enough 3rd party references in such a short period of time can end this debate when website pages like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoGAF which have 1 reference is free from trouble. I will continue to edit this page in hopes to appease any problems and alter it as other editors feel it needs to be. I have no problem with people questioning it's content and telling me what it needs but I think it's gone past the worry of deletion.--Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the problem, though. There aren't enough sources ABOUT the site, or at least with substantial coverage. Most of the sources give only passing mentions to the site, and some aren't at all related to the site, and are only there to bulk up the references section. And regarding NeoGAF, just because other stuff exists does not give this page a free pass. I agree, it needs sources. The site has been deleted before and nominated twice. However, The difference between NeoGAF and QSE is that NeoGAF has substantial coverage, Including a number of stories they've broken. Plus, there's this. I'd say that last one alone could prove notability for the entire article, it's just a matter of adding them (which I am going to do now). So far, it doesn't look like QSE has anywhere near that level of coverage. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, you see this is what confuses me. I removed any references that didn't at the very least mention the site (although one of them was put back by someone else). So while it can be debated that the articles don't mention the site enough (and thats a matter of argument) the part that you mentioned about the site not breaking enough news itself... media sites rarely do that. The site has high profile interviews (which you can see by just going to the site), 3 podcasts with high listenerships (one you even claim to be a fan of yourself) and contributors which the majority of whom are of note enough to get their own wiki article. I would have thought that these all contribute to a good case for notability. While it may not be a highly reported about site, its a well known one. So if the big problem is the references why not just leave the message at the top of the article that the references need to be improved rather than nomination for deletion?--Cabinfeveraaron (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is someone who is known to have a total sense of disgust for this subject matter being kept on Wikipedia, and I think that his animosity toward it should be considered in this deletion query. DodgerOfZion (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you elaborate please? I have no problem with articles like this going up on wikipedia, and in fact have been searching for sources in order for this article to stay. I think Quick Stop Entertainment is a great site, but I have to keep that separate from Wikipedia. There just aren't the sources to justify it's inclusion according to WP:WEB. I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of bad faith nominations. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Pettiness in the web? Who could imagine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.214.73 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - passes WP:N --T-rex 20:56, 24 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.