Mrs. Puff – keep closure endorsed. As obiter dicta, I note that merge is an editorial option after a keep AFD – GRBerry 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mrs. Puff (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` My apologies for bringing this back to DRV, but I was bothered by it's second close. This AfD was first closed by a non-admin as a "speedy keep", which was reversed since it there were valid objections. The second closing, by admin Wizardman (talk · contribs), was a keep. My problem is that the keep argument was extremely weak; all the keep supporter were claims "She's a major character!", without showing any reliable sources that prove these claims or show any other notability of the character. The delete/merge arguments were grounded in policy (namely WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FICT), and the keep voters did not address any of these problems. Considering the strength of the arguments, I argue that the AfD result should be overturned and the article deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Here's my dispute. Based on what WP:FICT says, I'd put Mrs. Puff as realtviely borderline between major and minor, leaning towards major. Having watched Spongebob regularly, she appears rather frequently and would be worthy of an article under WP:FICT. WP:RS really needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as it is far more difficult to find them with fictional characters. WP:V is a difficult issue with fictional characters, as the only way to verify mot information is to watch the actual episode. that being said, the article does have some sources in it now, and I would keep the article again given the chance. endorse keep --Wizardman 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist, since there was an assertion that she has real-world significance, and that claim deserves a chance to be substantiated. I'm not sure that I'd feel comfortable overturning such an overwhelming keep count of established editors, either. -Amarkov moo! 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse keep, there were a lot of voters on it. Only one made a plain delete vote, and even that one in the comment afterwards suggested alternatively merging it. There is not one person on that AfD who was strongly for deleting. I think the consensus was very clear to the admin when the decided to keep it. Mathmo ^Talk 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Regarding the WP:RS concern I cannot see any real concerns which would make me call the article unverifiable. The Spongebob Squarepants series itself is a valid primary source reference of the existence and events concerning the character, and the entry on Nickelodeon's site is not independent but does qualify as reliable enough. Self published sources in articles about themselves is valid. The issue of the notability of fictional characters is decided on a case-by-case basis and the inherent subjectivity involved in making such determinations means that notability is not as hard a rule as WP:V or WP:NOR in the terms of overriding community consensus. On this AFD there was a clear consensus to keep this article and WP:FICT guidelines are relevant so arguments relating to the character's importance are perfectly valid. Wizardman's close was the only correct call. Endorse closure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect, I am curious about something. 'Keep' voters on fictional character/elements, claim the character is "major" as if there is some kind of inherent subjectivity involved, as you say above. However, WP:FICT states that all characters should be kept within the main article on that work of fiction, regardless if it is a major or minor character. And that a major character can have its own article if it has "encyclopedic treatment" (ie. Out-of-universe perspective) and the main article is already too long. I take that to mean that a character would need to have (at the very least) one secondary source that describes it outside of the in-universe context. Am I missing something? Also, WP:RS concern is not about unverifiable info, it is about finding a reliable source (ie. non-promotional) saying she is a major character, or notable enough to mention (certainly SpongeBob is written about in academics and the press, but Mrs. Puff?). --maclean 01:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure, since I don't see anything wrong with the process here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure per WP:SNOW. Wooyi 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Mrs. Puff – keep closure endorsed. As obiter dicta, I note that merge is an editorial option after a keep AFD – GRBerry 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

My apologies for bringing this back to DRV, but I was bothered by it's second close. This AfD was first closed by a non-admin as a "speedy keep", which was reversed since it there were valid objections. The second closing, by admin Wizardman (talk · contribs), was a keep. My problem is that the keep argument was extremely weak; all the keep supporter were claims "She's a major character!", without showing any reliable sources that prove these claims or show any other notability of the character. The delete/merge arguments were grounded in policy (namely WP:RS, WP:V and WP:FICT), and the keep voters did not address any of these problems. Considering the strength of the arguments, I argue that the AfD result should be overturned and the article deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my dispute. Based on what WP:FICT says, I'd put Mrs. Puff as realtviely borderline between major and minor, leaning towards major. Having watched Spongebob regularly, she appears rather frequently and would be worthy of an article under WP:FICT. WP:RS really needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as it is far more difficult to find them with fictional characters. WP:V is a difficult issue with fictional characters, as the only way to verify mot information is to watch the actual episode. that being said, the article does have some sources in it now, and I would keep the article again given the chance. endorse keep --Wizardman 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, since there was an assertion that she has real-world significance, and that claim deserves a chance to be substantiated. I'm not sure that I'd feel comfortable overturning such an overwhelming keep count of established editors, either. -Amarkov moo! 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep, there were a lot of voters on it. Only one made a plain delete vote, and even that one in the comment afterwards suggested alternatively merging it. There is not one person on that AfD who was strongly for deleting. I think the consensus was very clear to the admin when the decided to keep it. Mathmo ^Talk 08:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the WP:RS concern I cannot see any real concerns which would make me call the article unverifiable. The Spongebob Squarepants series itself is a valid primary source reference of the existence and events concerning the character, and the entry on Nickelodeon's site is not independent but does qualify as reliable enough. Self published sources in articles about themselves is valid. The issue of the notability of fictional characters is decided on a case-by-case basis and the inherent subjectivity involved in making such determinations means that notability is not as hard a rule as WP:V or WP:NOR in the terms of overriding community consensus. On this AFD there was a clear consensus to keep this article and WP:FICT guidelines are relevant so arguments relating to the character's importance are perfectly valid. Wizardman's close was the only correct call. Endorse closure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, I am curious about something. 'Keep' voters on fictional character/elements, claim the character is "major" as if there is some kind of inherent subjectivity involved, as you say above. However, WP:FICT states that all characters should be kept within the main article on that work of fiction, regardless if it is a major or minor character. And that a major character can have its own article if it has "encyclopedic treatment" (ie. Out-of-universe perspective) and the main article is already too long. I take that to mean that a character would need to have (at the very least) one secondary source that describes it outside of the in-universe context. Am I missing something? Also, WP:RS concern is not about unverifiable info, it is about finding a reliable source (ie. non-promotional) saying she is a major character, or notable enough to mention (certainly SpongeBob is written about in academics and the press, but Mrs. Puff?). --maclean 01:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, since I don't see anything wrong with the process here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per WP:SNOW. Wooyi 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Golden-Road.net – deletion endorsed; redirection a possibility, but not enough discussion of that idea to show consensus and I can't see why it is worth doing – GRBerry 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Golden-Road.net (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Golden-road.net (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Golden Road.net (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Page about a site that was deleted due to being hightly biased and written poorly. I would like this reviewed. Jeff Defender 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and keep current version. Jeff Defender 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - The reasons given for this review as stated by Jeff Defender are fabricated and distorted. If one examines the previous AfD, it is obvious that article was deleted simply due to Notability requirements not being met. This is why the article was initially nominated for a speedy deletion today, until someone pointed out that it had already been deleted a little over two weeks ago due to an obvious consensus in an AfD. Also, the User:Jeff Defender account appears to be a sockpuppet created only to resurrect the Golden-Road.net article. This user has demonstrated a great deal of understanding of Wikipedia policy that a new user would not possess in such a short amount of time. Jeff Defender would seem to have little NPOV in regards to this article. Hatch68 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - I seriously doubt our site is notable enough outside the Price fan community to warrant a Wikipedia entry, and even if it were, the article as it existed two weeks ago was a badly written piece of junk that was probably beyond the point of salvaging without a complete rewrite. I know of at least four other site staffers besides me who feel the same way about this, so...yeah. -TPIRFanSteve 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and ~~rewrite~~ redirect. The owner must of felt that the site was not getting the respect it deserved in the first time around. --KP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karim Prince1 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply] i agree that User:JzG's suggestion is the best course of action. Karim Prince1 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and rewrite. The fact that the site takes viewers behind the scenes plus the fact that it gets tons of hits each day is more then enough to make it notable. Most game show buffs would agree. As for Hatch68's claim against Jeff, it's possible the user might have read policy a long time and then created the new name. Notibility is a difficult factor to be neutral about. In any case, his reposting was not malicious. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion - The page has been restored (yet again) since its speedy deletion yesterday, despite a specific request to the contrary from the Webmaster of golden-road.net. He recognizes that his site is not wiki-notable; that should end the discussion. If the poster immediately above me plans to fill the new article with phrases like "tons of hits" and "most game show buffs," I doubt he'll be able to improve on the old one. I'm an active participant on g-r.net, but this page (in any form) is simply fancruft. JTRH 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] no, I don't. I plan to state that the site provides extensive information, is visited by many former contestants. The point it that the page was originally deleted because it was highly biased. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is another false statement that is not based on the original AfD dialogue. It was deleted because it did not meet the notability requirements, plain and simple. No where in the AfD discussion is "bias" mentioned. Hatch68 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, valid closure. If you want to create a better version in userspace (with sources and assertions of notability), then review that one here, go wild. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I'm the admin who recently speedied it as a recreation of an AfD'd article. I've just done so again and protected it against recreation. If/when Deletion Review decides that it can get a rewrite, an admin will need to unprotect the article. A note should also then go on the talk page informing any future potentially "deletion happy" admins that it's been resurrected via DR. --Dante Alighieri \| Talk 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Although I hoped for a better outcome, I posted altered ((deletedpage)) on a couple of variations. The first one was not edited, so full protecting isn't nessecary. I'd semiprotect, though since all recreations were done by new users. NoInsurance (chat?) 11:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and redirect. The owner doesn't mind whether or not his site is listed on WP, so a good compromise is to redirect it to The Price is Right where is it referenced. 148.4.32.14 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment, i checked the site today and marc, who launched the site stated he's not interested as to whether this is listed on wikipedia. I'm sorry if i mislead anyone, but as of now i will have nothing further to do with this. Jeff Defender 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Marc did NOT say "he's not interested," he specifically asked that people NOT keep trying to revive the page.JTRH 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion (sole reason for keep appears to be that it could act as a FAQ for the site, which is absurd), allow redirect, which seems unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion. Process was followed. `'mikka 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion, but Redirect per Guy, but restore the history and protect as redirect to allow users to see why it was deleted. 63.116.153.5 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Deletion no notability, although a funny site. Wooyi 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and redirect, per Guy (Help!). Hendry1307 15:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, if notability means the site is referenced by a non-trivial source, then I will cite this site as one of them. 208.120.75.157 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per above. If the page needs to be deleted again, we'll do a second AFD. Jim Pooele 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, pretty notible as far as TPIR is concerned, too bad it's not an official site. In case you're wondering where all the newbie comments are coming from, see this link. Axiomm 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Golden-Road.net – deletion endorsed; redirection a possibility, but not enough discussion of that idea to show consensus and I can't see why it is worth doing – GRBerry 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Page about a site that was deleted due to being hightly biased and written poorly. I would like this reviewed. Jeff Defender 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and keep current version. Jeff Defender 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The reasons given for this review as stated by Jeff Defender are fabricated and distorted. If one examines the previous AfD, it is obvious that article was deleted simply due to Notability requirements not being met. This is why the article was initially nominated for a speedy deletion today, until someone pointed out that it had already been deleted a little over two weeks ago due to an obvious consensus in an AfD. Also, the User:Jeff Defender account appears to be a sockpuppet created only to resurrect the Golden-Road.net article. This user has demonstrated a great deal of understanding of Wikipedia policy that a new user would not possess in such a short amount of time. Jeff Defender would seem to have little NPOV in regards to this article. Hatch68 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - I seriously doubt our site is notable enough outside the Price fan community to warrant a Wikipedia entry, and even if it were, the article as it existed two weeks ago was a badly written piece of junk that was probably beyond the point of salvaging without a complete rewrite. I know of at least four other site staffers besides me who feel the same way about this, so...yeah. -TPIRFanSteve 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and ~~rewrite~~ redirect. The owner must of felt that the site was not getting the respect it deserved in the first time around. --KP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karim Prince1 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
i agree that User:JzG's suggestion is the best course of action. Karim Prince1 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and rewrite. The fact that the site takes viewers behind the scenes plus the fact that it gets tons of hits each day is more then enough to make it notable. Most game show buffs would agree. As for Hatch68's claim against Jeff, it's possible the user might have read policy a long time and then created the new name. Notibility is a difficult factor to be neutral about. In any case, his reposting was not malicious. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The page has been restored (yet again) since its speedy deletion yesterday, despite a specific request to the contrary from the Webmaster of golden-road.net. He recognizes that his site is not wiki-notable; that should end the discussion. If the poster immediately above me plans to fill the new article with phrases like "tons of hits" and "most game show buffs," I doubt he'll be able to improve on the old one. I'm an active participant on g-r.net, but this page (in any form) is simply fancruft. JTRH 14:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, I don't. I plan to state that the site provides extensive information, is visited by many former contestants. The point it that the page was originally deleted because it was highly biased. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another false statement that is not based on the original AfD dialogue. It was deleted because it did not meet the notability requirements, plain and simple. No where in the AfD discussion is "bias" mentioned. Hatch68 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, valid closure. If you want to create a better version in userspace (with sources and assertions of notability), then review that one here, go wild. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the admin who recently speedied it as a recreation of an AfD'd article. I've just done so again and protected it against recreation. If/when Deletion Review decides that it can get a rewrite, an admin will need to unprotect the article. A note should also then go on the talk page informing any future potentially "deletion happy" admins that it's been resurrected via DR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I hoped for a better outcome, I posted altered ((deletedpage)) on a couple of variations. The first one was not edited, so full protecting isn't nessecary. I'd semiprotect, though since all recreations were done by new users. NoInsurance (chat?) 11:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and redirect. The owner doesn't mind whether or not his site is listed on WP, so a good compromise is to redirect it to The Price is Right where is it referenced. 148.4.32.14 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i checked the site today and marc, who launched the site stated he's not interested as to whether this is listed on wikipedia. I'm sorry if i mislead anyone, but as of now i will have nothing further to do with this. Jeff Defender 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc did NOT say "he's not interested," he specifically asked that people NOT keep trying to revive the page.JTRH 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion (sole reason for keep appears to be that it could act as a FAQ for the site, which is absurd), allow redirect, which seems unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. Process was followed. `'mikka 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, but Redirect per Guy, but restore the history and protect as redirect to allow users to see why it was deleted. 63.116.153.5 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion no notability, although a funny site. Wooyi 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and redirect, per Guy (Help!). Hendry1307 15:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, if notability means the site is referenced by a non-trivial source, then I will cite this site as one of them. 208.120.75.157 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. If the page needs to be deleted again, we'll do a second AFD. Jim Pooele 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, pretty notible as far as TPIR is concerned, too bad it's not an official site. In case you're wondering where all the newbie comments are coming from, see this link. Axiomm 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Bwebliesl.JPG – deletion endorsed; should the article survive, the process for getting and showing permission is documented at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission – GRBerry 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Bwebliesl.JPG (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) Image Copyrighted:FreeUse Captain Barrett 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Admin is removing picture of Bio subject(CopyrightedFreeUse) without stating reason, during ongoing AfD discussion, then protects page, thus stopping addition of picture.Captain Barrett 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] The image is here. It's called CSD I3. Endorse deletion as a blatant speedy candidate. Daniel.Bryant 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Daniel.Bryant is not the Admin who removed the picture without explanation.Captain Barrett 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment-Which portion of CSD 13 does this fall into, please? Captain Barrett 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep-I just uploaded the image to the creative commons with the proper copyright attributes. I should have done this before, but I'm still learning. :) Captain Barrett 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] This one, and this one. Daniel.Bryant 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Daniel.Bryant is not the Admin who removed the picture without explanation.Captain Barrett 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] CommentThanks :) If I did say it was only for wikipedia use initially, i was incorrect. I have now asserted a Fair Use claim, based on standard wikipedia procedure. Thanks again for your attention to this matter.Captain Barrett 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's the letter i and a 3, not the number 13. - Mgm\|^(talk) 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <> 06:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse* valid I3. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - That picture (as all of his pictures are) are free for _any_ use, commercial or otherwise. Does not fall into section I3. Thanks MacGyverMagic for being the first person to explain :) Captain Barrett 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion per above reason, obviously free image, even not free it is fair use cuz it is the only picture available (thus irreplaceable) to illustrate this guy. Wooyi 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Bwebliesl.JPG – deletion endorsed; should the article survive, the process for getting and showing permission is documented at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission – GRBerry 01:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image Copyrighted:FreeUse Captain Barrett 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin is removing picture of Bio subject(CopyrightedFreeUse) without stating reason, during ongoing AfD discussion, then protects page, thus stopping addition of picture.Captain Barrett 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is here. It's called CSD I3. Endorse deletion as a blatant speedy candidate. Daniel.Bryant 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daniel.Bryant is not the Admin who removed the picture without explanation.Captain Barrett 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Which portion of CSD 13 does this fall into, please? Captain Barrett 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep-I just uploaded the image to the creative commons with the proper copyright attributes. I should have done this before, but I'm still learning. :) Captain Barrett 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one, and this one. Daniel.Bryant 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daniel.Bryant is not the Admin who removed the picture without explanation.Captain Barrett 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks :) If I did say it was only for wikipedia use initially, i was incorrect. I have now asserted a Fair Use claim, based on standard wikipedia procedure. Thanks again for your attention to this matter.Captain Barrett 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the letter i and a 3, not the number 13. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse valid I3. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That picture (as all of his pictures are) are free for _any_ use, commercial or otherwise. Does not fall into section I3. Thanks MacGyverMagic for being the first person to explain :) Captain Barrett 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion per above reason, obviously free image, even not free it is fair use cuz it is the only picture available (thus irreplaceable) to illustrate this guy. Wooyi 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Robert Strong – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Robert Strong (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` A relatively new admin closed this discussion as a clear delete, even though there was very limited participation. Based on my read, it seems to be either a no consensus, or something that should have been left open for more comments. --El on ka 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion — the argument was split down the middle by the few who participated, which means there was no consensus to keep or delete. Therefore, the article is kept by default. Moreover, the article is/was in the process of being expanded and sourced, although there are already a few fairly reliable sources. For these reasons, I feel the article should be returned. — Deckill er 09:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, there is a conflict of interest situation here – [1]. The article tried to assert notability, but fails to fulfill WP:BIO by providing multiple reliable sources. The Washington Post link does not work, the other two make transitory mentions of the subject. Keep deleted. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] The link works fine for me: [2]. — Deckill er 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Plausible close per WP:BIO, limited participation is not a good reason for overturning since AFD debates don't have a quorum. >Radiant< 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment — WP:BIO states that a person is notable if it has been the subject of multiple (more than one) reliable secondary sources (explained on WP:BIO) that are independent of the person, with non-trivial coverage). I see multiple newspaper sources (Contra Costa Times, Jewish Weekly, and Washington Post), and in all three, this person is either the subject or one of the primary subjects. Moreover, there are two other sources; one a website, another with similar significant coverage. Also, the person has performed in TV shows which, obviously, have significant coverage and viewing (loosely based on the final optional criteria). I feel that it passes, albeit somewhat weak. — Deckill er 11:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I usually hold the mere existence of an article in the Post as a good argument for keeping, but in this case, it's not so much an article as a short, local, "What's On Guide" (the dates and prices give it away, IMHO). The Jewish Guide wasn't really an article about him, just a brief mention in a similar guide/ranking thingy. yandman 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] What I'm surprised by is that this person performed on some extremely notable shows, yet he did not receive at least partial attention from a single article about him. That Post miniarticle is somewhat thin, but I still feel that there is just enough to cross the threshold and keep the article (especially if one adds google hits). On the other hand, this man has only recently become popular, so it might take some time before he catches more notice of the scholars and the reporters. Also, it might be possible to dig up other sources; we'll have to wait and see for the duration of this review (the page has been userfied). I'm not too concerned either way, although I'm glad to see additional discussion taking place now. Too bad it did not occur during the AfD. — Deckill er 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. Seems to be a proper reading of consensus. 3 deletes (including nom); 2 keeps, but 1 keep is an acknowledged friend of the subject who presents no argument based on policy and the other keep is a weak keep based on borderline notability so "the article can grow". I don't think the keeps established their position relative to the deletes, so the consensus was fairly judged. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I hate to appear like a comment troller, but I feel that Elonka established her keep well in comparison to W.marsh, who did not reply to her final reply. The second keep vote concerns me as well, but s/he was working with Elonka on the article and is a relatively new editor, which alone has numerous pros and cons. — Deckill er 12:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure after other editors have agreed and the closing admin has made clarifications. Clearly, there is no need to be stubborn here. The article has been userfied for future potential. — Deckill er 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] And I'll try to be more verbose in my closing comments in future. Apologies. yandman 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I find that helps whenever the consensus is not obvious from the sheer numbers. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Robert Strong – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A relatively new admin closed this discussion as a clear delete, even though there was very limited participation. Based on my read, it seems to be either a no consensus, or something that should have been left open for more comments. --El on ka 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion — the argument was split down the middle by the few who participated, which means there was no consensus to keep or delete. Therefore, the article is kept by default. Moreover, the article is/was in the process of being expanded and sourced, although there are already a few fairly reliable sources. For these reasons, I feel the article should be returned. — Deckill er 09:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, there is a conflict of interest situation here – [1]. The article tried to assert notability, but fails to fulfill WP:BIO by providing multiple reliable sources. The Washington Post link does not work, the other two make transitory mentions of the subject. Keep deleted. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The link works fine for me: [2]. — Deckill er 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Plausible close per WP:BIO, limited participation is not a good reason for overturning since AFD debates don't have a quorum. >Radiant< 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — WP:BIO states that a person is notable if it has been the subject of multiple (more than one) reliable secondary sources (explained on WP:BIO) that are independent of the person, with non-trivial coverage). I see multiple newspaper sources (Contra Costa Times, Jewish Weekly, and Washington Post), and in all three, this person is either the subject or one of the primary subjects. Moreover, there are two other sources; one a website, another with similar significant coverage. Also, the person has performed in TV shows which, obviously, have significant coverage and viewing (loosely based on the final optional criteria). I feel that it passes, albeit somewhat weak. — Deckill er 11:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually hold the mere existence of an article in the Post as a good argument for keeping, but in this case, it's not so much an article as a short, local, "What's On Guide" (the dates and prices give it away, IMHO). The Jewish Guide wasn't really an article about him, just a brief mention in a similar guide/ranking thingy. yandman 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm surprised by is that this person performed on some extremely notable shows, yet he did not receive at least partial attention from a single article about him. That Post miniarticle is somewhat thin, but I still feel that there is just enough to cross the threshold and keep the article (especially if one adds google hits). On the other hand, this man has only recently become popular, so it might take some time before he catches more notice of the scholars and the reporters. Also, it might be possible to dig up other sources; we'll have to wait and see for the duration of this review (the page has been userfied). I'm not too concerned either way, although I'm glad to see additional discussion taking place now. Too bad it did not occur during the AfD. — Deckill er 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Seems to be a proper reading of consensus. 3 deletes (including nom); 2 keeps, but 1 keep is an acknowledged friend of the subject who presents no argument based on policy and the other keep is a weak keep based on borderline notability so "the article can grow". I don't think the keeps established their position relative to the deletes, so the consensus was fairly judged. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to appear like a comment troller, but I feel that Elonka established her keep well in comparison to W.marsh, who did not reply to her final reply. The second keep vote concerns me as well, but s/he was working with Elonka on the article and is a relatively new editor, which alone has numerous pros and cons. — Deckill er 12:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure after other editors have agreed and the closing admin has made clarifications. Clearly, there is no need to be stubborn here. The article has been userfied for future potential. — Deckill er 12:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll try to be more verbose in my closing comments in future. Apologies. yandman 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that helps whenever the consensus is not obvious from the sheer numbers. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

GameTZ.com – deletion overturned; relisting at editorial discretion – GRBerry 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GameTZ.com (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` GameTZ has been covered twice in GamePro and been the subject of a syndicated TV spot discussing online trading and bartering (the whole "multiple, reliable, unrelated sources" thing). It was the first game trading site (begun in 1996), spawning the creation of such well-known failures as Switchhouse. I do not see how that doesn't meet the notability requirements. On top of that, there was no consensus at all on what should have been done, so it should have been closed as "no consensus." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment from closing admin: Just a reminder, this is not a rehashing of the arguments on the AfD. In my closing note I stated that the case for notability made by the keep arguments were not convincing. The decision in this review needs to be based on whether my reasoning in determining consensus was correct. Other than this statement, I abstain from comment. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] And I'm saying that you were incorrect as the items I mentioned clearly make the case. A TV spot and coverage twice in a major gaming magazine definitely qualify as multiple, reliable, and unrelated sources, and therefore I believe your reasoning was incorrect. I also stated that there was no consensus either way on the discussion as the arguments for deletion focused on the USA Today article, which was incidental to the main articles/TV spots used to establish notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, valid close and good judgment. Fails criterion #1 along with #2 and #3 of WP:WEB – The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself – Only a trivial mention on the USA today link. The other references are not independent, linked to GameTZ's own site. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry if this comes off as sounding rude, but are you even paying attention to anything I write? The USA Today article is NOT being used to establish notability. You are acting as if the two mentions in GamePro and the TV spot aren't even there. They are (or were, anyway) clearly referenced in the article, and the USA Today mention is merely incidental to these others. I agree that the USA Today article does very little to indicate notability. I have never claimed that it did. In fact, I've stated several times (here and in the original AfD) that it's not being used to establish notability. I don't know how I can state this more clearly: the USA Today article is NOT being used to establish notability, and in fact is not even necessary in the article as the WP:WEB notability requirements are very clearly met by the GamePro articles and the TV Spot. Again, I apologize if this comes off as rude as that is not my intent. It's just very frustrating to have people completely ignore these points and use other completely irrelevant points to "back up" their claims. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I should also point out that GamePro is completely independent of GameTZ. They have no connection at all other than people who play games use both. The same goes for the TV spot. It was produced independently of GameTZ, and GameTZ had absolutely no influence on the content of the spot (other than having a member of the site be interviewed in the spot). How these can be construed as being linked to GameTZ is beyond me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] No, you are not being rude and I appreciate that you cared to comment. The GamePro magazine you cite as source does not even look notable to be included, considering the state of the article. Moreover, there is a complete lack of multiple independent sources. Perhaps we interpret guidelines differently, I see this as a valid closure. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] We don't (and shouldn't) judge one article based on how good another article is. Just because the GamePro article is not quite up to snuff doesn't mean the magazine isn't a notable magazine, and therefore good for use as a reference. There are plenty of notable topics which either have very short articles here or no article at all. And I still don't understand how GamePro and the TV spot don't count as "multiple independent sources." There are two of them, which make them "multiple," and they are both independent of GameTZ. Exactly how does that not qualify? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, we don't judge one article based on how good another article is. The problem is GamePro itself is not a source that is covered by WP:V and WP:RS. Moreover, you are unable to provide us online links for an online portal like GameTZ.com to justify its inclusion. Should we take your word for it that it was published in some other non-notable magazine? And given a coverage that was more than trivial? Even if all zis was true, the article is still has trivial which do not justify its inclusion in anyway. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure how GamePro is not considered a non-notable magazine. In terms of video gaming magazines, it's been around forever. Are you expecting a magazine that's the video game equivalent of the Journal of the AMA? Within this subject area, GamePro (along with EGM and a few others) is a notable source. Dstumme 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion, per points made by 日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}. The closing admin should have taken these points into account, they clearly mean it is notable. It seems maybe too much weight was given to considering other sources that are not the primary reasons for why it should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 08:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Seems to me that everyone got hung up on the USA Today article, while ignoring multiple other sources. Dstumme 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

GameTZ.com – deletion overturned; relisting at editorial discretion – GRBerry 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

GameTZ has been covered twice in GamePro and been the subject of a syndicated TV spot discussing online trading and bartering (the whole "multiple, reliable, unrelated sources" thing). It was the first game trading site (begun in 1996), spawning the creation of such well-known failures as Switchhouse. I do not see how that doesn't meet the notability requirements. On top of that, there was no consensus at all on what should have been done, so it should have been closed as "no consensus." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin: Just a reminder, this is not a rehashing of the arguments on the AfD. In my closing note I stated that the case for notability made by the keep arguments were not convincing. The decision in this review needs to be based on whether my reasoning in determining consensus was correct. Other than this statement, I abstain from comment. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that you were incorrect as the items I mentioned clearly make the case. A TV spot and coverage twice in a major gaming magazine definitely qualify as multiple, reliable, and unrelated sources, and therefore I believe your reasoning was incorrect. I also stated that there was no consensus either way on the discussion as the arguments for deletion focused on the USA Today article, which was incidental to the main articles/TV spots used to establish notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid close and good judgment. Fails criterion #1 along with #2 and #3 of WP:WEB – The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself – Only a trivial mention on the USA today link. The other references are not independent, linked to GameTZ's own site. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this comes off as sounding rude, but are you even paying attention to anything I write? The USA Today article is NOT being used to establish notability. You are acting as if the two mentions in GamePro and the TV spot aren't even there. They are (or were, anyway) clearly referenced in the article, and the USA Today mention is merely incidental to these others. I agree that the USA Today article does very little to indicate notability. I have never claimed that it did. In fact, I've stated several times (here and in the original AfD) that it's not being used to establish notability. I don't know how I can state this more clearly: the USA Today article is NOT being used to establish notability, and in fact is not even necessary in the article as the WP:WEB notability requirements are very clearly met by the GamePro articles and the TV Spot. Again, I apologize if this comes off as rude as that is not my intent. It's just very frustrating to have people completely ignore these points and use other completely irrelevant points to "back up" their claims. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that GamePro is completely independent of GameTZ. They have no connection at all other than people who play games use both. The same goes for the TV spot. It was produced independently of GameTZ, and GameTZ had absolutely no influence on the content of the spot (other than having a member of the site be interviewed in the spot). How these can be construed as being linked to GameTZ is beyond me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not being rude and I appreciate that you cared to comment. The GamePro magazine you cite as source does not even look notable to be included, considering the state of the article. Moreover, there is a complete lack of multiple independent sources. Perhaps we interpret guidelines differently, I see this as a valid closure. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't (and shouldn't) judge one article based on how good another article is. Just because the GamePro article is not quite up to snuff doesn't mean the magazine isn't a notable magazine, and therefore good for use as a reference. There are plenty of notable topics which either have very short articles here or no article at all. And I still don't understand how GamePro and the TV spot don't count as "multiple independent sources." There are two of them, which make them "multiple," and they are both independent of GameTZ. Exactly how does that not qualify? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't judge one article based on how good another article is. The problem is GamePro itself is not a source that is covered by WP:V and WP:RS. Moreover, you are unable to provide us online links for an online portal like GameTZ.com to justify its inclusion. Should we take your word for it that it was published in some other non-notable magazine? And given a coverage that was more than trivial? Even if all zis was true, the article is still has trivial which do not justify its inclusion in anyway. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how GamePro is not considered a non-notable magazine. In terms of video gaming magazines, it's been around forever. Are you expecting a magazine that's the video game equivalent of the Journal of the AMA? Within this subject area, GamePro (along with EGM and a few others) is a notable source. Dstumme 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion, per points made by 日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}. The closing admin should have taken these points into account, they clearly mean it is notable. It seems maybe too much weight was given to considering other sources that are not the primary reasons for why it should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 08:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Seems to me that everyone got hung up on the USA Today article, while ignoring multiple other sources. Dstumme 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Gomagicgo – deletion endorsed by established editors; if the podcast is notable, there will be enough published, independent reliable sources to write a new article following the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test in userspace and bring that for review – GRBerry 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gomagicgo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` Go Magic Go is notable because it was started on Thursday, July 28, 2005, as the first podcast for magicians by magicians. One needs only to search "podcast" here and find dozens of informational entries for podcasts of note, some of which are as short as one or two sentences. Adam Curry has a page for every one of his podcasts in Wikipedia, not just the one that he supposedly birthed podcasting with. In addition to GMG's notoriety as the first magician's podcast, they have been recognized by the magic community as such. They have hosted such great magicians and mentalists as Kenton Knepper, Banachek, Scott Wells, Kevin Spencer and more. The hosts themselves have been interviewed by Scott Wells on his live show at the IBM Convention, where they also served as judges for up-and-coming magic acts. If you don't know who Kenton Knepper, Banachek, Scott Wells, Kevin Spencer, et. al, are... then that shows that you don't understand the notoriety of this podcast, its hosts and its impact on the close-knit and growing community of magicians. The GMG entry should remain since the administrator trying do delete doesn't understand it. Just because Alphachimp is simply not aware of the significance this podcast has in the magic community, or the fact that it is growing every week. --Indyhouse, magician and GMG listener As a fan of Go Magic Go, I really was dissapointed with Alpha chimps decision. Go Magic Go is the first and one of the leading podcast concerning magic. We have been an increasingly popular podcast. I meet magicians who know me by the shirt I won from this podcast! My magic instructor found out about this podcast about the same time I did. Go Magic Go is an important resources for performing artists. Wikipedia is a great place where the users can add and collect data and history about this podcast as it continues to grow. I would like to see the correct title[s] unblocked also, it was an extreme disrespect to have to move to an improper title. Please reconsider GoMagicGo and Go Magic Go. Go Magic Go is the official title, however the YouTube account and myspace page is under GoMagicGo. Thanks! NordicSkier 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am hoping that the revival of this page could happen. Alphachimp deleted our page calling it unremarkable. Go Magic Go is the first magician's podcast, and has over 5,000 listeners. Magic is becoming very popular from magicians, such as Criss Angel and David Blaine, the number of magicians in the world are growing. This podcast serves to link the magic community together. All of the Go Magic Go listeners are hoping you will change your mind about your decision, -The kid houdini —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The kid houdini (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply] Endorse deletion and salting, if not speedily. Various deletions were valid A7 or G11, and all appear to be valid. Various incarnations of the page violated various parts of WP:NOT, such as WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and WP:NOT#FORUM, and the various recreations were copypastes, making them subject to the very same criterion under which they were previously deleted. None of the versions assert notability per WP:WEB, and on the internet, 5,000 listeners isn't a remarkable number. Also, the fact that other magicians are notable doesn't make a podcast about them notable. --Core desat 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, keep salted The fact that your podcast has a forum community willing to recreate your article over and over and over again does not mean that you are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Quite simply put, none of your revisions actually attempted to assert notability. I'd encourage admins to check out the deleted revisions. alphachimp 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, valid A7. Serial and obsessive re-creation by editor with no other contributions invites scepticism. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, keep salted Unless some new sources can be found that are non-trivial, reliable sources then it should stay deleted. --sunstar net^talk 11:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I would just like to clarify that the podcast is not about these magicians, they listen and endorse it. The forum community is trying to recreate the page because we did not know of this deletion review. I think I found it. We accidenlty made another one when a listener tried to make a new page, but made it under the wrong name. how would we prove it is non-trivial? New sources? Reviews of the podcast, We just never linked you to them, I don't remember the sites, but I will ask around in the forums, If thats what you need. Have any of you seen mindfreak, a good number of the magicians who work with Criss, are supporters of our show including, Banachek, the man who fooled the scientists. We were in a german magazine. Here are some links. http://www.gomagicgo.com/images/GMG_Magie01.jpg http://www.gomagicgo.com/images/GMG_Magie02.jpg We all still hope you will change your mind, -The kid houdini http://www.magician.org/webcam.html -- specifically: http://www.magician.org/videos2006/Scott_wells-sat/video1.rm -- approx. 33 minutes into the program taped live at IBM (International Brotherhood of Magicians), Andrew and Keith are interviewed by Scott Wells and recognized for their contribution to the magic community. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] It should be mentioned that the article was deleted before any outside sources could be added. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] There are other references to GoMagicGo from other, "non-trivial" sources, they were never compiled into one place before, which is why I think the Wikipedia entry was started. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm curious if adding the standard "internet-publish-stub" would help the entry? It should have been added to begin with. Like this entry, which as far as I can tell is less-cited than GMG: Polyamory_Weekly Indyhouse 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] -UKGareth aka Garethwitty : Well I am very shocked at this deletion, what happened to Wikipedias goal of collecting as much information as possible about things like this? How can other magicans find GoMagicGo if its deleted! I ask that GoMagicGo be put back to its place so other users can and ad make the page MORE relevent. Well I wont be using Wikipedia again! I hate sites that go against freedom of speech! Now I am all for protecting agains vandalism of artcles, thats fine, but this, this is a joke! but I am not laughing. I am quite happy for my account to be closed if the mods here dont like what I have to say. I saw that one of the podcasts I linked to as an example got deleted, so how about this one: Daily_Source_Code Indyhouse 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Shucks, I'm fine with 'pedia deleting any reference to Go Magic Go at all, for several reasons. (1) To keep Andrew's prediction (that GMG would be deleted) accurate. (2) The fewer people who learn about GMG, the less possible exposure there is. (Let 'em find Henry Hays' book!) (3) Wikipedia has shown a remarkable antipathy to magicians in the past, exposing and ruining many magicians' acts. (ex: Dave "Slim King" lost a recurring $1500 gig because of this "Let's destroy careers" attitude.) Let's celebrate. -Granpa Chet 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)~~
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Gomagicgo – deletion endorsed by established editors; if the podcast is notable, there will be enough published, independent reliable sources to write a new article following the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test in userspace and bring that for review – GRBerry 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Go Magic Go is notable because it was started on Thursday, July 28, 2005, as the first podcast for magicians by magicians. One needs only to search "podcast" here and find dozens of informational entries for podcasts of note, some of which are as short as one or two sentences. Adam Curry has a page for every one of his podcasts in Wikipedia, not just the one that he supposedly birthed podcasting with.

In addition to GMG's notoriety as the first magician's podcast, they have been recognized by the magic community as such. They have hosted such great magicians and mentalists as Kenton Knepper, Banachek, Scott Wells, Kevin Spencer and more. The hosts themselves have been interviewed by Scott Wells on his live show at the IBM Convention, where they also served as judges for up-and-coming magic acts.

If you don't know who Kenton Knepper, Banachek, Scott Wells, Kevin Spencer, et. al, are... then that shows that you don't understand the notoriety of this podcast, its hosts and its impact on the close-knit and growing community of magicians.

The GMG entry should remain since the administrator trying do delete doesn't understand it. Just because Alphachimp is simply not aware of the significance this podcast has in the magic community, or the fact that it is growing every week.

--Indyhouse, magician and GMG listener

As a fan of Go Magic Go, I really was dissapointed with Alpha chimps decision. Go Magic Go is the first and one of the leading podcast concerning magic. We have been an increasingly popular podcast. I meet magicians who know me by the shirt I won from this podcast! My magic instructor found out about this podcast about the same time I did. Go Magic Go is an important resources for performing artists. Wikipedia is a great place where the users can add and collect data and history about this podcast as it continues to grow. I would like to see the correct title[s] unblocked also, it was an extreme disrespect to have to move to an improper title. Please reconsider GoMagicGo and Go Magic Go. Go Magic Go is the official title, however the YouTube account and myspace page is under GoMagicGo. Thanks! NordicSkier 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that the revival of this page could happen. Alphachimp deleted our page calling it unremarkable. Go Magic Go is the first magician's podcast, and has over 5,000 listeners. Magic is becoming very popular from magicians, such as Criss Angel and David Blaine, the number of magicians in the world are growing. This podcast serves to link the magic community together.

All of the Go Magic Go listeners are hoping you will change your mind about your decision, -The kid houdini —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The kid houdini (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse deletion and salting, if not speedily. Various deletions were valid A7 or G11, and all appear to be valid. Various incarnations of the page violated various parts of WP:NOT, such as WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and WP:NOT#FORUM, and the various recreations were copypastes, making them subject to the very same criterion under which they were previously deleted. None of the versions assert notability per WP:WEB, and on the internet, 5,000 listeners isn't a remarkable number. Also, the fact that other magicians are notable doesn't make a podcast about them notable. --Core desat 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, keep salted The fact that your podcast has a forum community willing to recreate your article over and over and over again does not mean that you are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Quite simply put, none of your revisions actually attempted to assert notability. I'd encourage admins to check out the deleted revisions. alphachimp 04:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid A7. Serial and obsessive re-creation by editor with no other contributions invites scepticism. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, keep salted Unless some new sources can be found that are non-trivial, reliable sources then it should stay deleted. --sunstar net^talk 11:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to clarify that the podcast is not about these magicians, they listen and endorse it. The forum community is trying to recreate the page because we did not know of this deletion review. I think I found it. We accidenlty made another one when a listener tried to make a new page, but made it under the wrong name. how would we prove it is non-trivial? New sources? Reviews of the podcast, We just never linked you to them, I don't remember the sites, but I will ask around in the forums, If thats what you need. Have any of you seen mindfreak, a good number of the magicians who work with Criss, are supporters of our show including, Banachek, the man who fooled the scientists. We were in a german magazine. Here are some links. http://www.gomagicgo.com/images/GMG_Magie01.jpg http://www.gomagicgo.com/images/GMG_Magie02.jpg

We all still hope you will change your mind,

-The kid houdini

http://www.magician.org/webcam.html -- specifically: http://www.magician.org/videos2006/Scott_wells-sat/video1.rm -- approx. 33 minutes into the program taped live at IBM (International Brotherhood of Magicians), Andrew and Keith are interviewed by Scott Wells and recognized for their contribution to the magic community. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that the article was deleted before any outside sources could be added. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other references to GoMagicGo from other, "non-trivial" sources, they were never compiled into one place before, which is why I think the Wikipedia entry was started. Indyhouse 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if adding the standard "internet-publish-stub" would help the entry? It should have been added to begin with. Like this entry, which as far as I can tell is less-cited than GMG: Polyamory_Weekly Indyhouse 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-UKGareth aka Garethwitty : Well I am very shocked at this deletion, what happened to Wikipedias goal of collecting as much information as possible about things like this? How can other magicans find GoMagicGo if its deleted! I ask that GoMagicGo be put back to its place so other users can and ad make the page MORE relevent. Well I wont be using Wikipedia again! I hate sites that go against freedom of speech! Now I am all for protecting agains vandalism of artcles, thats fine, but this, this is a joke! but I am not laughing. I am quite happy for my account to be closed if the mods here dont like what I have to say.

I saw that one of the podcasts I linked to as an example got deleted, so how about this one: Daily_Source_Code Indyhouse 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, I'm fine with 'pedia deleting any reference to Go Magic Go at all, for several reasons. (1) To keep Andrew's prediction (that GMG would be deleted) accurate. (2) The fewer people who learn about GMG, the less possible exposure there is. (Let 'em find Henry Hays' book!) (3) Wikipedia has shown a remarkable antipathy to magicians in the past, exposing and ruining many magicians' acts. (ex: Dave "Slim King" lost a recurring $1500 gig because of this "Let's destroy careers" attitude.) Let's celebrate.

-Granpa Chet

17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)~~

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

GU Comics – speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 endorsed; article recreated with an assertion of notability; GFDL history restored; further actions at editorial discretion – GRBerry 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GU Comics (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`AfD`)` From the deleting editors talk page If GU Comics is irrelevant and lacks notability, then so do most other webcomics present in the Wikipedia free encyclopedia. The difference being if you contact Sony Online Entertainment and ask them what GU is they will tell you that GU was the first webcomic to cover their game, and powerful enough to have forced change in the way they related to their community after leading a player boycott of their products. We could however have John Smedley contact you on our behalf. Or you could talk to Blizzard makers of World of Warcraft about what GU is. They could relate to you how GU was the first webcomic to talk about their game and as such was invited as a guest of honor to BlizzCon to run a panel in conjunction with Mike Krahaulik and Jerry Holkins from Penny Arcade and Scott Kurtz of PVP. Or we could have Rob Pardo contact you on our behalf. Or you could talk to Sigil Games, makers of Vanguard, about how they feel GU Comics is a vital and essential part of their community makeup. A site that can actively take in the voices of the community and translate it via the comic into criticism that is not dismissed lightly. Or we could just have Brad McQuaid contact you on our behalf. Or you could talk to Mythic about how they knew GU's influence and thus GU was one of the first sites they contacted to spread the word about their upcoming game Warhammer Online. Or maybe the references to GU by GamePolitics.Com is enough. Because apparently they feel our take on certain aspecs of gaming is notable. The simple fact is this, GU is considered to be a crucial element of the MMOG landscape. And the fact that every major MMOG Developer/Publisher out there knows our work and respects our commentary as the voice of the community makes us notable. Or we could just have our sizeable readership which includes CEOs, designers, developers, community relations people, PR firms, marketing firms to contact you on our behalf. 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Please see my above comment. Do not have anyone contact me. Personal and anecdotal knowledge is not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. Instead, please provide references to specific reliable sources, such as magazines or newspapers, that support these claims to notability. Alternatively, you may also request undeletion at WP:DRV, but such a request will likely fail if no reliable sources are provided for the comic's notability. Sandstein 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] As for being referenced several times, at least for World Of Warcraft, Blizzard Entertainment referenced this comic on their main page on (at least) 19/01/07 (verifiable via http://www.wow-europe.com/en/community/recent-communitynews.html). Additional references from the same source appear at http://www.wow-europe.com/en/community/news2006.html, at least on 08/12/2006, 25/08/2006 and 18/08/2006. The creator of GU Comics is neither a Blizzard Employee, nor does he excercise any kind of control over Blizzard, so i think these can not be explained as "Vanity Publishing" references. TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername 07:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Overturn WP:CSD#A7 Zz9pzza 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Zz9pzza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] My account is not a single purpose account it was created becuase of an error in the page about UUCP. There is usually nothing I can usefully add to a discussion or document. Endorse deletion. The google cache shows that the article did not demonstrate or even assert notability, so it was deleted fairly. You may try recreating the article at User:Zz9pzza/GU Comics if you think you can demonstrate notability per our WP:N guidelines. Once this is done, the article can be re-evaluated. But at this time there is no reason to undelete. — coelacan talk — 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I reposted it with references and links. Hopefully that should cover the basics. I am sure more links and references will be coming.--Breandán 09:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as deleting admin. See also the discussion on my talk page, now archived at User talk:Sandstein/GU Comics. Those inclined to recreate the article should follow the procedure outlined by Coelacan above. Sandstein 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The actual notability of the website is at this point immaterial, as the article under review right now clearly did not assert that notability; as such Sandstein acted effectively and correctly. Several people have since come forward for arguments for notability and suggested sources, but these should be added to the article, along with an assertion of notability, via the procedure outlined above. The comment above advocating an overturn, as well as many of the comments on Sandstein's talk page, simply miss the point that we are not debating the notability of the website, but rather the initial article's failure to assert it. --Tractor kings fan 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Then why wasn't anything put on the articles talk page stating that it was currently lacking any assertion of it's notability? Why the speedy deletion instead of an AfD? Not even a chance to correct it. I've seen that before on a number of pages, someone places a warning that the page is lacking and will be deleting unless it is improved. Why not in this case? --Paul Barkley 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I've seen that too. It's definitely a courteous move, but not required. With all of the pages being constantly created, it's difficult to notify the creators of all of them when the pages meet the criteria for speedy deletion. But look, is it that hard to assert notability? You're writing an encyclopedia article, don't you think that you might stop to think why the subject of that article is important? Either way, it's part of the agreed upon criteria that articles assert notability. This one does not, as anyone who reads it can see. Therefore, it fit the criteria for speedy deletion. I just don't understand the complexity here. The article can be recreated, it hasn't been protected to prevent that, it just needs to follow the guidelines to avoid being speedy deleted and have sources to prevent an Afd. Why is it the fault of the deleting admin if the person who wrote the article didn't avail him/herself of the wealth of information available regarding the basic necessities for inclusion? --Tractor kings fan 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Along the same lines why is it the article's fault that contributors failed include what is deemed necessary for this entry (but not applied equally to other entries)? This item was not created or maintained by Me (Woody) and those persons responsible for adding the article may well not have not that such strictures existed as this is supposed to be an encyclopedic relayance of knowledge not a demi-hypocritical evaluation system given more to ignorance of the article's import than to accurate transference of relevant material. Whearn 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] The article's fault? People write articles. These people didn't assert notability. And it seems pretty common-sense, at least to me, to say why the subject of the article you're writing matters at all. As far as other articles go I can't say, but please keep in mind that this debate is about this article, not other ones, and so continuously referring to that doesn't get anybody anywhere. As far as "ignorance of the article's import," the idea is for the author not to assume that everybody knows how important this comic website is. The notability of the website is highly "relevant material," and should have been included in the first place. That's all anybody here is saying. Nobody is claiming, or really cares, whether Woody or anybody else wrote or maintained the article. The article didn't assert notabilty, therefore it fits the speedy deletion criteria, as defined by Wikipedia (which is where we are). Thats all! How "demi-hypocritical" you consider this to be is similarly irrelevant, and if you want to debate that guideline, you can do it on the WP:CSD talk page. --Tractor kings fan 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Further Comment You all seem to want to debate something different that what is being discussed in this particular forum. The question here is: did this deletion follow policy? The answer is yes, because it didn't assert notability, and that is the policy. For all the rhetoric regarding selective application of policy (which you can read about at WP:INN) and what Wikipedia is, in your opinion, "supposed to be," I haven't seen anyone effectively dispute that. If you have some kind of moral problem with the current policies, why don't you debate them on their respective pages? --Tractor kings fan 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] As the one who put the article together, I can attest that A) it was not Woody who put it up (in fact, I don't think he was aware of it until I contacted him for permission to use an image), and B) I was unaware of the specifics of notability. That being said, the article DID reference many of the events that GU Comics had been involved in that were major events in the gaming industry, and a citation needed tag should have been placed long before a jump to speedy delete. If someone had let me or other contributors know that it needed such, they would have been provided as has already been done at User:Zz9pzza/GU Comics. Speedy deletion was a mistake in this case, and I believe the deletion should be reversed based on that premise, and the article re-evaluated.--Breandán 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion Until such time as all webcomics are held to the same criteria, no webcomic should be summarily deleted. It was my understanding, until today, that an encyclopedia existed as a source of information, and a free online encyclopedia served as the perfect platform of unending, readily available information not limited by ineffectual criteria. Beyond the immediate inconsistancy between purpose and actuallity, GU's entry, lacking trivial assertions of notability, deserved the opportunity to be corrected. Ignorance of GU's importance within the "notable" MMOG industry/community simply is not reason enough to speedy delete its article. From a statics standpoint Wikipedia constitutes less than 6/1000ths of a percent of GU's monthly traffic. So obviously, its existance in this database is purely for the purposes of disseminating relevant information which is what an encylopedic entry should be for. And as far as notability is concerned, GU's position as a notable item has nothing to do with its popularity and everything to do with the perceived merit of its commentary by genre related news sources and its relative importance within the gaming culture. Simply stated GU is more relevant than a wealth of other items still readily available at Wikipedia. Whearn 08:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Whearn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Overturn deletionNotability was partially established by references to many of the events that GU Comics had been involved in within the gaming industry, some of which were to be found in print, online, and even video media, and a citation needed tag should have been placed long before a jump to speedy delete was made. As the initial deletion is in question, the deletion should be reversed, the article reviewed, citation needed tags placed, and references placed appropriately.--Breandán 09:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion While notability was not as clearly established as it could have been, a citation template would would, IMHO have been the most drastic measure appropriate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply] Overturn deletion While I might agree on the article not properly asserting its notability, I think the article subject (GU Comics) meets the criteria of being "famous" (see previously cited references and general support). As per Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments, "all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable". I think it is better to have an article about a notable subject that "needs work" (with the appropriate tag(s)), than to do not have article at all. Solf 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] To support the claim of the being "famous" somewhat -- to the best of my understanding, Woody Hearn (author of the GU Comics) was made into Horizon MMORPG NPC "Hoody Wearn" at some point of time. Unfortunately the only information I have is from the GU Comics forums itself: http://www.guforums.com/archive/index.php?t-9025.html I hope someone can provide more independent information on this. Solf 11:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, pages must stand on their own; saying that since we keep some webcomics we must keep all of them is fallacious. >Radiant< 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion Using AfD and/or adding comments on the talk page should have been the first step. Outright deletion was not needed. Mikemill 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion Outright deletion of the comic is unwarranted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion per Mikemill. Mathmo ^Talk 08:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion We shouldn't keep all webcomics, but in the gaming community, this is an important one. I'm very disappointed it was speedied. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion, article is well written and provide enough details. No AFD nomination. 70.107.9.150 Overturn deletion and merge history with current article. The article has been reposted with what should be sufficient assertion of notability and citations, but the history is currently missing because of the deletion. Furthermore, the deletion was an improper speedy in the first place, because the article most certainly did contain an assertion of notability, referring to Woody's stature in the MMORPG development and player communities, garnered through his webcomic and related activities. It can be quibbled whether that's actual notability or not, but it's most certainly an assertion of it. Powers ^T 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] You mean this article, right? I don't see any assertion of notability in there, at least not of the comic, and not under any notability criteria I'm aware of. People, it's really quite simple. Per WP:CSD#A7, any web content article that does not clearly assert notability may be immediately deleted, period. No further notices, tags or procedures are needed. Otherwise, we'd be even more full of web vanity crap than we are now. Sandstein 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Request closure. This DRV is now moot, as the article has been recreated with a sourced assertion of notability, and is thus no longer speediable. That's how the process is supposed to work, actually. Sandstein 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

GU Comics – speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 endorsed; article recreated with an assertion of notability; GFDL history restored; further actions at editorial discretion – GRBerry 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

From the deleting editors talk page

If GU Comics is irrelevant and lacks notability, then so do most other webcomics present in the Wikipedia free encyclopedia. The difference being if you contact Sony Online Entertainment and ask them what GU is they will tell you that GU was the first webcomic to cover their game, and powerful enough to have forced change in the way they related to their community after leading a player boycott of their products. We could however have John Smedley contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Blizzard makers of World of Warcraft about what GU is. They could relate to you how GU was the first webcomic to talk about their game and as such was invited as a guest of honor to BlizzCon to run a panel in conjunction with Mike Krahaulik and Jerry Holkins from Penny Arcade and Scott Kurtz of PVP. Or we could have Rob Pardo contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Sigil Games, makers of Vanguard, about how they feel GU Comics is a vital and essential part of their community makeup. A site that can actively take in the voices of the community and translate it via the comic into criticism that is not dismissed lightly. Or we could just have Brad McQuaid contact you on our behalf.

Or you could talk to Mythic about how they knew GU's influence and thus GU was one of the first sites they contacted to spread the word about their upcoming game Warhammer Online.

Or maybe the references to GU by GamePolitics.Com is enough. Because apparently they feel our take on certain aspecs of gaming is notable.

The simple fact is this, GU is considered to be a crucial element of the MMOG landscape. And the fact that every major MMOG Developer/Publisher out there knows our work and respects our commentary as the voice of the community makes us notable. Or we could just have our sizeable readership which includes CEOs, designers, developers, community relations people, PR firms, marketing firms to contact you on our behalf.

20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my above comment. Do not have anyone contact me. Personal and anecdotal knowledge is not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. Instead, please provide references to specific reliable sources, such as magazines or newspapers, that support these claims to notability. Alternatively, you may also request undeletion at WP:DRV, but such a request will likely fail if no reliable sources are provided for the comic's notability. Sandstein 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for being referenced several times, at least for World Of Warcraft, Blizzard Entertainment referenced this comic on their main page on (at least) 19/01/07 (verifiable via http://www.wow-europe.com/en/community/recent-communitynews.html). Additional references from the same source appear at http://www.wow-europe.com/en/community/news2006.html, at least on 08/12/2006, 25/08/2006 and 18/08/2006. The creator of GU Comics is neither a Blizzard Employee, nor does he excercise any kind of control over Blizzard, so i think these can not be explained as "Vanity Publishing" references. TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername 07:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Overturn WP:CSD#A7 Zz9pzza 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Zz9pzza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My account is not a single purpose account it was created becuase of an error in the page about UUCP. There is usually nothing I can usefully add to a discussion or document.

Endorse deletion. The google cache shows that the article did not demonstrate or even assert notability, so it was deleted fairly. You may try recreating the article at User:Zz9pzza/GU Comics if you think you can demonstrate notability per our WP:N guidelines. Once this is done, the article can be re-evaluated. But at this time there is no reason to undelete. — coelacan talk — 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reposted it with references and links. Hopefully that should cover the basics. I am sure more links and references will be coming.--Breandán 09:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as deleting admin. See also the discussion on my talk page, now archived at User talk:Sandstein/GU Comics. Those inclined to recreate the article should follow the procedure outlined by Coelacan above. Sandstein 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The actual notability of the website is at this point immaterial, as the article under review right now clearly did not assert that notability; as such Sandstein acted effectively and correctly. Several people have since come forward for arguments for notability and suggested sources, but these should be added to the article, along with an assertion of notability, via the procedure outlined above. The comment above advocating an overturn, as well as many of the comments on Sandstein's talk page, simply miss the point that we are not debating the notability of the website, but rather the initial article's failure to assert it. --Tractor kings fan 06:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why wasn't anything put on the articles talk page stating that it was currently lacking any assertion of it's notability? Why the speedy deletion instead of an AfD? Not even a chance to correct it. I've seen that before on a number of pages, someone places a warning that the page is lacking and will be deleting unless it is improved. Why not in this case? --Paul Barkley 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that too. It's definitely a courteous move, but not required. With all of the pages being constantly created, it's difficult to notify the creators of all of them when the pages meet the criteria for speedy deletion. But look, is it that hard to assert notability? You're writing an encyclopedia article, don't you think that you might stop to think why the subject of that article is important? Either way, it's part of the agreed upon criteria that articles assert notability. This one does not, as anyone who reads it can see. Therefore, it fit the criteria for speedy deletion. I just don't understand the complexity here. The article can be recreated, it hasn't been protected to prevent that, it just needs to follow the guidelines to avoid being speedy deleted and have sources to prevent an Afd. Why is it the fault of the deleting admin if the person who wrote the article didn't avail him/herself of the wealth of information available regarding the basic necessities for inclusion? --Tractor kings fan 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines why is it the article's fault that contributors failed include what is deemed necessary for this entry (but not applied equally to other entries)? This item was not created or maintained by Me (Woody) and those persons responsible for adding the article may well not have not that such strictures existed as this is supposed to be an encyclopedic relayance of knowledge not a demi-hypocritical evaluation system given more to ignorance of the article's import than to accurate transference of relevant material. Whearn 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's fault? People write articles. These people didn't assert notability. And it seems pretty common-sense, at least to me, to say why the subject of the article you're writing matters at all. As far as other articles go I can't say, but please keep in mind that this debate is about this article, not other ones, and so continuously referring to that doesn't get anybody anywhere. As far as "ignorance of the article's import," the idea is for the author not to assume that everybody knows how important this comic website is. The notability of the website is highly "relevant material," and should have been included in the first place. That's all anybody here is saying. Nobody is claiming, or really cares, whether Woody or anybody else wrote or maintained the article. The article didn't assert notabilty, therefore it fits the speedy deletion criteria, as defined by Wikipedia (which is where we are). Thats all! How "demi-hypocritical" you consider this to be is similarly irrelevant, and if you want to debate that guideline, you can do it on the WP:CSD talk page. --Tractor kings fan 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment You all seem to want to debate something different that what is being discussed in this particular forum. The question here is: did this deletion follow policy? The answer is yes, because it didn't assert notability, and that is the policy. For all the rhetoric regarding selective application of policy (which you can read about at WP:INN) and what Wikipedia is, in your opinion, "supposed to be," I haven't seen anyone effectively dispute that. If you have some kind of moral problem with the current policies, why don't you debate them on their respective pages? --Tractor kings fan 03:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who put the article together, I can attest that A) it was not Woody who put it up (in fact, I don't think he was aware of it until I contacted him for permission to use an image), and B) I was unaware of the specifics of notability. That being said, the article DID reference many of the events that GU Comics had been involved in that were major events in the gaming industry, and a citation needed tag should have been placed long before a jump to speedy delete. If someone had let me or other contributors know that it needed such, they would have been provided as has already been done at User:Zz9pzza/GU Comics. Speedy deletion was a mistake in this case, and I believe the deletion should be reversed based on that premise, and the article re-evaluated.--Breandán 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion Until such time as all webcomics are held to the same criteria, no webcomic should be summarily deleted. It was my understanding, until today, that an encyclopedia existed as a source of information, and a free online encyclopedia served as the perfect platform of unending, readily available information not limited by ineffectual criteria. Beyond the immediate inconsistancy between purpose and actuallity, GU's entry, lacking trivial assertions of notability, deserved the opportunity to be corrected. Ignorance of GU's importance within the "notable" MMOG industry/community simply is not reason enough to speedy delete its article. From a statics standpoint Wikipedia constitutes less than 6/1000ths of a percent of GU's monthly traffic. So obviously, its existance in this database is purely for the purposes of disseminating relevant information which is what an encylopedic entry should be for. And as far as notability is concerned, GU's position as a notable item has nothing to do with its popularity and everything to do with the perceived merit of its commentary by genre related news sources and its relative importance within the gaming culture. Simply stated GU is more relevant than a wealth of other items still readily available at Wikipedia. Whearn 08:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Whearn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Overturn deletionNotability was partially established by references to many of the events that GU Comics had been involved in within the gaming industry, some of which were to be found in print, online, and even video media, and a citation needed tag should have been placed long before a jump to speedy delete was made. As the initial deletion is in question, the deletion should be reversed, the article reviewed, citation needed tags placed, and references placed appropriately.--Breandán 09:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion While notability was not as clearly established as it could have been, a citation template would would, IMHO have been the most drastic measure appropriate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerraNova whatcanidotomakethisnottoosimilartosomeothername (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn deletion While I might agree on the article not properly asserting its notability, I think the article subject (GU Comics) meets the criteria of being "famous" (see previously cited references and general support). As per Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Arguments, "all "famous" and "important" subjects are notable". I think it is better to have an article about a notable subject that "needs work" (with the appropriate tag(s)), than to do not have article at all. Solf 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To support the claim of the being "famous" somewhat -- to the best of my understanding, Woody Hearn (author of the GU Comics) was made into Horizon MMORPG NPC "Hoody Wearn" at some point of time. Unfortunately the only information I have is from the GU Comics forums itself: http://www.guforums.com/archive/index.php?t-9025.html I hope someone can provide more independent information on this. Solf 11:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, pages must stand on their own; saying that since we keep some webcomics we must keep all of them is fallacious. >Radiant< 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion Using AfD and/or adding comments on the talk page should have been the first step. Outright deletion was not needed. Mikemill 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Outright deletion of the comic is unwarranted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion per Mikemill. Mathmo ^Talk 08:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion We shouldn't keep all webcomics, but in the gaming community, this is an important one. I'm very disappointed it was speedied. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, article is well written and provide enough details. No AFD nomination. 70.107.9.150
Overturn deletion and merge history with current article. The article has been reposted with what should be sufficient assertion of notability and citations, but the history is currently missing because of the deletion. Furthermore, the deletion was an improper speedy in the first place, because the article most certainly did contain an assertion of notability, referring to Woody's stature in the MMORPG development and player communities, garnered through his webcomic and related activities. It can be quibbled whether that's actual notability or not, but it's most certainly an assertion of it. Powers ^T 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this article, right? I don't see any assertion of notability in there, at least not of the comic, and not under any notability criteria I'm aware of. People, it's really quite simple. Per WP:CSD#A7, any web content article that does not clearly assert notability may be immediately deleted, period. No further notices, tags or procedures are needed. Otherwise, we'd be even more full of web vanity crap than we are now. Sandstein 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request closure. This DRV is now moot, as the article has been recreated with a sourced assertion of notability, and is thus no longer speediable. That's how the process is supposed to work, actually. Sandstein 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.