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. This debate is hard to interpret, some rewriting took place that changed the issue. There aren't enough delete comments to overbalance the keep comments that mention the real notability claim of the article. A fresh AfD listing would probably be appropriate, but let's give it at least a couple of weeks. Mango juice^talk 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmen hunters[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete as nonsense. User:ScottS insists on removing ((db-nonsense)) tags, so I now raise the matter here on Afd. --Xdamr^talk 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there has been a substantial tidying-up of the article within the past 24h, I think the G1 speedy deletion (as nonsense) is now inapplicable. There certainly seems to be a genuine topic behind this, although the article was pretty meaningless at the time of nomination. Given that we now have a reasonably coherent article, it all boils down to one question—is the subject notable? I will therefore leave this nomination open so that this issue may be settled.

Xdamr^talk 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. I do not understand why, this is continued to be tagged. Please discuss.

Please do not delete.

Several people, as I believe directed by the original deletion notice, have voiced their desire to see the article remain. They've made their voices known here: [1]. Yes, it's a kind of stand-in article currently, but HUNTERS fans are now on the way to update/expand/fix the entry. Please do not delete. Thanks

Delete A couple quick searches didn't turn up any articles that would support WP:N. I would, of course, change my vote if someone can point me to some sources that would satisfy notability requirements.Chunky Rice 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete unless properly sourced post-haste. Which I strongly suggest is impossible, since this appears to be something made up at school in one day. ---Haemo 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to address Haemo's contention that HUNTERS is no more than a school project, here is the bio/background of the show/makers: Zanzibar19 BioZanzibar19

Still does not meet WP:A or WP:RS, and totally fails WP:NOTE. Also, abusing the Speedy Keep terminology does a disservice to everyone involved. --Haemo 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do aplogize if I have abused the terms. I'm trying to learn as I go. Zanzibar19

Delete Blatantly speediable under G1, but given the history, lets AfD it first and then G4 it if (when) it reappears. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep but possible rewrite. Include at the very least [2] as source. James Callahan 02:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a primary source to me. To satisfy WP:N the source must be independent of the subject. Chunky Rice 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to address Chunky Rice's questions of notability, I would submit this interview from the Internet entertainment news show VIRAL. Zanzibar19

Speedy delete per nom, and A7. Leuko 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep but possible rewrite. Snowman Hunters is a cult hit on youtube.com and google videos. As one of the top comedian shows on youtube.com it counts as a significant entertainment show given its high viewership. Similar in some aspects to Trailerpark boys in its breaking of stage rules (talking to the audience and such) it is a vulgar satire of American paranoia and attitudes towards outsiders. Some are considering it for deletion because they do not understand the new entertainment media of youtube.com and because they have not heard of the show. I would be embarrassed for wikipedia.com for not including this show. The entry does need some more information and better writing however this show clearly merits inclusion due to its scope and the newness of its contribution to video short entertainment on the Internet. James Love 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— James Love (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Answer to questions of notability. Here are several prominent video websites which have spotlighted/highlighted/created special channels for HUNTERS:

GoFish.com, Veoh.com, StupidVideos.com, Grouper.com Zanzibar19

Answer to address contention SNOWMEN HUNTERS is ridiculous and nonsense. Yes. Yes it is. It's meant to be funny. Granted, it's kind of a cult hit so not everyone likes it, and if we fall off under the notable guidelines, so be it. But please don't delete until this discussion has run it's course (5 days, right?).Zanzibar19

This completely unverifiable. Ryan Neisz isn't found on IMDb with writing or crew credits for any of the listed shows (and its "Battery Park" not "Batter Park"). If he did participate on those sitcoms at all , it was in a very minor role and fails to confer any notability. Minor celebrities on YouTube is a bit of a reach, 691,551 all time views (for their "most popular" video) is a blip in the YouTube world. Even if fans were to come and "improve" this article - they would be unable to provide any sources, and blow by blow plot summaries of each video won't help the situation one bit. Strong, strong delete unless a a reliable source magically appears very soon. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to address CosmicPenguin's questions on Ryan Neisz' credits, here is a page from Yahoo TV's crew credits page, which outlines some of his credits. As for accomplishments in the world of online entertainment, I'd again point questioners (as I believe they are honest and earnest in asking these questions) to this episode of VIRAL.Zanzibar19

Comment - please read the standards under WP:WEB. None of these "sources" come even remotely close to meeting this. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes - it's very hard to read this AFD like this. --Haemo 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the snowmen hunters page. It is a show growing in popularity on YouTube, and there are fans all over the world. The show is meant to be silly and downright nonsensical, that's what makes it funny. Please keep the article.

WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument. --Haemo 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to address CosmicPenguin's... I'm sorry, I was temporarily distracted by the greatness of that name... anyway, to address Mr. Penguin's question about being a blip in the YouTube world, I submit the Zanzibar19 YouTube page, which shows the YouTube determined honors of 13th Most Subscribed Comedians on the site, and 48th Most Viewed Comedians All Time. If this doesn't rise to the level of notability per WP (as I'm not deeply familiar with all the variables) so be it. However, in the world of YouTube, these honors are not insignificant. Zanzibar19

Seriously, sign your posts. And you have a serious WP:COI commenting on this AFD, since you appear to be involved in this project. Unless your username is simply a coincidence, which I doubt. --Haemo 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related unpleasant note, I'd like to bring this to everyone's attention: http://www.zanzibar19.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=89. It appears a user with exactly the same username as the Zanzibar19 is actively canvassing new users to vote on this AFD. This is directly contrary to the WP:AFD procedures, and seriously abuses this process. I sincerely hope this isn't you. --Haemo 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Haemeo: I'm sorry if I've not IDed myself correctly per WP guidelines. This is my first serious exposure to being a part of a WP article, and I'm unfamiliar and trying to learn quickly as I go. I believe with this re-edit I've gone back and signed the answers I've provided today. As to the forum mention, I put that up today when one of our fans stated they had created a WP entry and I saw it was flagged for deletion. I'm sorry if this is against a WP guideline. It thought the WP community simply weren't familiar with us, and thought those interested in having a WP entry should let their voices be heard. I apologize if this is against a WP policy as you point out.

I am trying to abide by WP practices/guidelines (even while trying to get work done today. lol) which is why I have not edited the article itself or corrected inaccuracies within it. Zanzibar19 I'm sorry, I don't yet know how to time-stamp my signing.

Comment You can sign your posts by simply putting 4 tildes at the end of them. I highly recommend that you read WP:AFD WP:N, WP:WEB and other relevant Wikipedia policy guidelines. It'll make this process smoother for everyone involved.Chunky Rice 03:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will do Chunky. Thank you for your aide. Zanzibar19 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my last comment, as I don't want to do anything to damage/enrage/tweak the WP community or push unduely to have a SNOWMEN HUNTERS article if it doesn't meet the criteria. Per Haemero, Chunky's and other's questions per WP:N and WP:WEB, I believe these conditions are met primarily by VIRAL and to a minor extent here, both independent of Zanzibar19 Bio. Other independent links can be found above. On a final note, I'd ask the judge of this discussion with whatever grace I have not to have the legitimate efforts and work of our fans be tainted by whatever way I may have mishandled this discussion. As a former journalist (don't laugh now) I understand the need/value of independent information (which is why it would have been a kick to have a WP entry if it plays out like that) rational discussion and the difference between a popularity contest and a reasoned evaluation. I hope the sources I provided clarify that, and ask that my missteps (admitted) be seen in these lights. Thanks everyone. (And yes, I understand the oddness of outlining this back and forth in light of how ridiculous the show at issue is). Zanzibar19 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First let me state that a cursory viewing of the forum associated with the production company Zanzibar19 will show that one of the moderators of that forum has the same username as the one I use here. That is because we are one and the same person. I do not have any other association with that company and am only a moderator because of my knowledge of running a forum. When my expertise became known to the owners of the company and their production schedule would not permit an active involvement by either of them in the running of the forum I volunteered to help out and moderate. My total involvement as a moderator is to delete offensive posts i.e. spam, porn. I recieve no compensation for this service and therefore there should be no conflict of interest. If you beleive there is please contact me and explain why you believe so.

Having said that, I would like to add to the discussion. I agree with James Love's comment above that this entry is about a hit cult video and as such deserves to be included here. There is a real need to stay abreast of current fast paced changes in the entertainment industry. Viral videos have an ever expanding presence in the marketplace on the internet as evidenced by Google's purchase of YouTube. This article is about one of the first hit shows on that medium and as such will provide some historical insight into the phenomenon for future researchers. In the past two days the article has been vastly refined and will no doubt improve as more research on the subject is done. If there are any improvements/refinements that should be made in the article I would welcome the input as this is the first one I've worked on. steveoutdoorrec 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Mr. Steveoutdoorrec. This is an entry describing a hit show on the Internet's most popular independent video website.Salseiro 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Salseiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Yes, the initial posting raised red flags on whether this should be included because insufficient information was provided. I've added some stuff for them and gotten folks to add some of the necessary references to merit inclusion. It's obvious that they have a following. I enjoy their irreverent humour on youtube and given the awards, others do too. They are not a flash in the pan since they are working on their third season, so let's get over the initial submission mistakes and move on. jamesarthurlove 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thing is, even if we accept all that as given, it still fails WP:N.Chunky Rice 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, until such a point in time comes as to make it WP:N. Until that time, delete with prejudice. And, as a bit of an aside to the video's creators: A useful tip for ya: "In order to break the rules [of cinema], first you must understand the rules [of cinema]". --Action Jackson IV 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Chucky Rice & Action Jackson IV: I call your atttention to WP:IAR. "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." In the age of the internet newsgroups and discussion forums a redefining of WP:N must and should take place. In fact this redefining of notarity is under discussion at this time at Wikipedia_talk:Notability and, by the look of the archives, has been raging for quite some time. It is possible for something, a new sport, viral video or other youth oriented phenomenon, to become notable without any hard copy articles being written about them. The article under discussion here is exactly that, a phenomenon with a following growing by word of mouth at colleges and high schools around the world and in discussion forums. The only difference between the Snowmen Hunters and Lonelygirl15 is that the latter caused a self serving publicity blitz by admitting that the character was a fake and not an actual 15 year old girl. Yet [Lonelygirl15] has an article with mutiple links to other paid actors character's websites included and as far as I can determine was not flagged for any reason. One must ask if a self serving publicity move makes one "notable," which gives it the right to have an article included here, why is this article not concidered to be a form of spam? Inclusion here only generates more hits to their websites for possible purchases of branded merchandise. Take a look at the articles and internet interview show now cited in the recent updates to article under discussion and you will see that there is some independent verification that Snowmen Hunters are gathering some interest in an admitted non-conventional media.steveoutdoorrec 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How nice of you to admit that the topic under consideration is not notable. If it's not notable under the current guidelines, then it's not notable. If you want to get the guidelines changed, this is not the place to do it - the aforementioned discussion page is. Unless you're able to meet guidelines under WP:WEB/WP:NOTE, your article should be deleted - since you admit you cannot, I don't know what more there is to say. --Haemo 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you seemed to have been able to miss the point of my post completely. No where did I “admit that the topic under consideration is not notable.” My point is that there are other articles on similar subjects that did not have to pass through a gauntlet to be accepted. Of course I will be making an argument on the notoriety discussion page on that subject. Here I am just pointing out that while the initial posting on the Snowmen Hunters was simplistic it was there to start the process of inserting a full-blown article. Over the last 48 hours much has been done to flesh the article out to meet the standards set and I’m sure that more information will be included as the show grows and matures. To stop its inclusion because some people seem to refuse to check out the supporting interviews and written articles is unconscionable. Yes, there is a written article in the Chico News and Review in case you were wondering.steveoutdoorrec 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's that notable, it shouldn't be difficult to add sources, should it? Yet there still aren't any decent ones in the article. (As an aside, from the talk page: "But to delete the first article on their early efforts would be tantamount to shredding Tolstoy’s first attempt at War and Peace"). EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response As to the quote from the talk page used above; it was used to defend the original posting of the article. As I’ve said before the original was amateurish, at best, and was only intended as a place holder to start the process of fleshing out the actual article. That fleshing out has been done with input from people around the world.

o Also please refer to my post of 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) where I stated, “It is possible for something, a new sport, viral video or other youth oriented phenomenon, to become notable without any hard copy articles being written about them.” My point being that in this fast paced age of the internet there are other ways for a subject to become “notable” then being seen in the print medium that is rooted in the 19th century. To ignore this, what many believe to be, alternative process of becoming notable would be wrong.

o At this time I would like to also address CosmicPenguin’s post of 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) and his assertion that “Minor celebrities on YouTube is a bit of a reach, 691,551 all time views (for their "most popular" video) is a blip in the YouTube world.” What he chose to ignore, or just did not know, is that Snowmen Hunters is also on many more websites such as: ifilm, gofish, videobomb, vsocial, multiply, clipshack, tagged, vidilife, vsocial, and flukiest to name only a few to be found here. This list does not take into account the many facebook and myspace accounts of fans that have one or more of their videos embedded there by the owners of those pages who want to share them with their friends. Using the raw number on a counter of one website is not a suitable way to judge how many people may have seen one particular video. Every viewing on each website may generate many more viewings as a particular video is passed around by email or shared on any one of the many myspace type websites. That is why they are called viral videos and can create notoriety in a new way.steveoutdoorrec 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia doesn't require written sources. Online ones will do. Surely a notable viral video would generate verifiable, reputable, secondary online sources? EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That’s my point. Some here have said that the subject is not “notable” due to there being no verifiable secondary sources. No amount of links to interviews and online, as well as one off line, article seems to satisfy them. It would look to an outsider as though they had looked at the original post and none of the refinements. steveoutdoorrec 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there we are then - it's up to you to add those sources to the article in order for it to be kept. But note that just giving a list of websites where the video can be seen is not enough - see here. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I see what you are saying, but just to make sure I understand correctly; does what you’re saying apply to the article on Snowmen Hunters under discussion in these two instances as secondary sources? Or should some change be made to how the sources are listed to make them more creditable? Any direction would be appreciated as this is my first foray into Wikipedia.

 Under the heading News Articles I’ve placed a link at the bottom of the article to Days of Lore by By Mark Lore where Mr. Lore states, “Among the 3,000 entries came one from former CN&R film critic Chris Smith. The cool thing is Smith was informed this week that his was chosen as one of the 20 finalists (among them a video from Andy Dick), which will now go to a popular vote with the chance of winning $50,000 to make his own pilot. Smith filmed the video, entitled Snowmen Hunters, with his cousin Ryan Neisz outside of Lassen Park as part of a series in March of this year. The premise focuses on a couple of yokels named Sherman and Everett (played by Neisz and Smith, respectively) who have a disdain for men with eyes of coal, carrot noses and stick "appendages." It seems Everett has never been the same since he caught his wife plowing the snow. It's pretty damn funny, too.”

 Under the heading Interviews I’ve placed a link to the popular online magazine Viral: Episode Nine in which one of the reporters interviews the creators of Snowmen Hunters and talks about the upcoming season.steveoutdoorrec 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Here for the WP definition of primary and secondary sources. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that we've covered everything that is needed to have the article included here. One development that occurred today is that the Snowmen Hunters videos have been nominated by YouTube as one of the Top Ten video series for 2006. With all the video series that were uploaded in 2006 to be in the top ten is the definition of notoriety. Case settled IMHO steveoutdoorrec 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. You've got one trivial mention in a paper. The interview is better, but it doesn't appear that the source qualifies as reliable. And the award you're talking about doesn't appear to be a significant award. It's not being awarded by YouTube, from what I can tell. It's just a user driven thing.Chunky Rice 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links speak for themselves:

Washington Post - YouTube Awards

BBC - YouTube Awards

CBS News - YouTube Awards

YouTube Home Page - Note button for the official "YouTube 2006 Video Awards. Vote for the 2006 Winners!" contest at the mid-right of the page.

YouTube 2006 Awards - Direct Link

These YouTube awards are official. Believe me, I understand if people don't enjoy/like/understand/get SNOWMEN HUNTERS, but it seems the notability portion of this discussion is settled. If some "just don't like" SNOWMEN HUNTERS, fine, but I'm not sure that's any more germane than the "I like it" reasoning so correctly excluded by Haemo above. If 'I like it' doesn't apply, neither can 'I don't like it.'

Maybe those asking for the inclusion of SNOWMEN HUNTERS were simply 5 days premature in advocating an article in WP. I don't concede this, but hypothetically let's say until yesterday the deleters on balance were right. The facts have shifted significantly just in the last 12 hours. A weekly online video show nominated by the largest online video site in history is by definition noteworthy. With this latest development, I think it's fair to say HUNTERS should be included in Wikipedia, along with other 2006 YouTube Award nominees for best series like WILL IT BLEND, ASK A NINJA, LONELYGIRL15 and CHAD VADER, all of which have WP entries.

Is this fair/honest/in the WP sprit/mission? I understand the nerves/questioning/horror given the original state of this article, but now it seems all the legitimate arguments for deletion have been answered fairly and fully. And yes, I'm an interested party as expressed above, but I don't believe that undercuts the reality before us. Whatever is decided, I thank everyone involved in this discussion, even though it's made me cry like a baby at times (We can joke here, right? I mean, if I were joking. Because in reality I cried puppy tears. It was thoroughly embarrassing). Zanzibar19 04:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is is just me, or was Snowmen hunters mentioned absolutely nowhere in those links? Ok, so you've proven that the YouTube awards exist, but you still have not proven notability, since as far as I can tell, the show has not won a YouTube award. This is getting ridiculous. Motion to close as delete per WP:SNOW. Leuko 04:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leuko, if you check the YouTube 2006 Awards Direct link, check the BEST SERIES link as indicated above, HUNTERS is there with the other 9 shows nominated. I've more than simply proven the awards exist, but proven HUNTERS was nominated. If you want to say it's only significant if HUNTERS wins (which won't be announced for a week) I'd respectfully submit the definition of notability you offer is remarkably tortured. By any normal notability standard, this more than qualifies. As for HUNTERS not being mentioned in the CBS/BBC/Post links above, those stories were written this moring based off a YouTube press release announcing the awards and before the nominations were revealed. The links were provided here to answer Chunky's questioning of the awards legitimacy. Just how is it that the awards are legitimate, the articles on the awards are legitimate, but those nominated are not? Didn't Xdamr, who opened this discussion, amend his comments to say notability was the only question remaining? If you honestly don't believe this qualifies, okay, but it seems a fair reading of all the notability arguments and links above run counter to your WP:SNOW proposal and the events of today. Zanzibar19 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Winning a significant independent award is certainly grounds for notability under WP:WEB. Being nominated isn't. It looks like Snowman Hunters might be on the brink, but it's not there yet.Chunky Rice 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Also, this isn't personal. It just doesn't seem to meet the notability standards laid out in Wikipedia policy. Believe me that I've argued for deletion of stuff I really liked, so it's not about that. If it is as you say, and the page gets deleted, just come back when the show has won an award or gotten some media attention and ask for it to be restored.Chunky Rice 05:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chunky for clarifying. I didn't mean to imply you specifically were making this personal. I was trying to address what seemed to be the general notion that HUNTERS advocates were simply relying on the 'I like it.' It seems my writing of that came across more muddied than I'd intended. ('Say, how muddy did you intend...')Since you seem to be taking this fairly seriously and weighing it with a fair mind, I have to ask, does nomination really denote no notability? It would seem to me, at a certain level, even a nomination denotes significant notability. If this awards contest was from ObscureVideoSite.com, I'd understand. But this is YouTube, THE premiere online video site of the Web 2.0 era, and this is their first annual awards. Specifically, how does that not qualify as noteworthy?Zanzibar19 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to address Chucky's assertion that the interview on Veho is from a source that, in his words, “doesn't appear that the source qualifies as reliable.” By using a popular internet thing called Google (you may have heard of them) to do a search for Veoh Networks, Inc, the owners of the program in which the interview was done, the second hit in the search produces a press release with the title, “Time Warner, Michael Eisner And Spark Capital Join Shelter Capital To Complete $12.5 Million Strategic Series B Investment In Veoh Networks.” There seems to be a lot of unknown people throwing some serious money into this unreliable source. How did I ever find this out you may ask? I just looked at the bottom of the screen where the interview was, right after Copyright 2007 and there it was.

I'd like to think it's not personal but on your profile page your stated "goal is to source and clean up geek articles (board games, comics, etc.)." When I look up geek the first line is, "A geek is an individual who is fascinated by knowledge and imagination, usually electronic or virtual in nature." If so count me as one because I too am facinated by knowledge and imagination. With them we wouldn't be having this descussion because there would be no online much less "a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project" steveoutdoorrec 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. I like to improve geek-hobby articles so that they meet Wikipedia standards. And from that, you've concluded that I have some sort of personal vendetta against this article?

You know, I've tried to be helpful and bother to actually explain why I was voting the way I was voting, and you respond by insulting me and questioning my character? I don't need that. My vote stands at delete and I'm done with this.Chunky Rice 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not an asshole, I'll still tell you that if this AFD resolves in the article getting deleted, you should seek a deletion review with the argument that significant improvements were made to the article after the debate began and that it should be relisted so that all voters can have a chance to consider the new information. They haven't swayed me, but others may have different opinions.Chunky Rice 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I have offended you Chucky. Please forgive me as it was not my intention, truly. As I look back at my post I see that I worded it badly. The trouble with text is that it doesn't portray the emotions behind the words. With your permission I'd like to ask for the record that we forget that part and move on.

My point in my first paragraph still stands that the interview was from a reliable source.

Thank you for the help in spurring us on to refine the article and for the suggested recourse if it is deleted. I would hope that all the voters would look at the article one last time before voting to see where it was when deletion was suggested and where it is at this point in time. They may then see that signigicant improvements were made in a very short time. Chucky without your input the article would not be in the shape it is in. For that I thank you. steveoutdoorrec 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to thank you Chunky Rice, and everyone else who have participated in this exchange. I'm not sure how it will come out, but I'm satisfied that between Haemo's, Chunky's and the other persistant posters on the delete side of this, along with the entries from the HUNTERS supporters like steveoutdoorrec and a few of my own entries, this question has been thoroughly examined. I'd like to offer my sincere thanks, and a hope that the things said in the heat of argument didn't sting unduely. Seems like some might, and that's too bad. I apologize for whatever part I've played in that. Suggesting another course of action was a stand-up thing for you to do Chunky, and I really do appreciate it.

All that said, I think it's almost time to call this. I did just get interviwed for tonight's KHSL Channel 12 local news, but we'll see if that runs tonight. I can't remember just how TV interviews figure into this. Who knows. There may be another ream of links in a week or so. Thanks everyone. Zanzibar19 20:38, 20 March 2007 (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.