Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:41, 14 February 2007

< February 13	Deletion review archives: 2007 February	February 15 >

14 February 2007

Mrs. Puff

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]

Golden-Road.net

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. The owner must of felt that the site was not getting the respect it deserved in the first time around. --KP

Image:Bwebliesl.JPG

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-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]

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]

Robert Strong

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]

GameTZ.com

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]

Gomagicgo

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.

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]

GU Comics

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) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Overturn WP:CSD#A7 Zz9pzza 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[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]

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) This template must be substituted.[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]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 *'''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. [[User:Hatch68|Hatch68]] 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 *'''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. -[[User:TPIRFanSteve|TPIRFanSteve]] 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Overturn and rewrite'''.  The owner must of felt that the site was not getting the respect it deserved in the first time around. --KP
 ====[[:Image:Bwebliesl.JPG]]====