Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dumbass productions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbass productions, Alan Farrey, Dumbass: The Movie

^{[Check Google hits]} about 500. almost all of which are google video/myspace/angelfire/ other nonsense. Delete because it would be impossible to find reliable third-party sources, as well as failing WP:CORP (|-- UlTiMuS 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Added Alan Farrey and Dumbass: The Movie to this nom as they are all related NN junk, all of which get only blog/mirror hits. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I understand your concern. May I just clear one thing up, though, Dumbass Productions is not a jackass copycat group of people, if anything it's the antithesis of it. Real films are made by these guys and have been released, admittedly in small numbers, in Co. Leitrim. I really understand your concern and I hope we can find some sort of middleground. Wikipedia is a huge resource of information and I think we can find something we both agree on. Jiei 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also! I know for a fact that the company is undergoing a name change to dispel the very associations which are the basis for you wanting to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jiei (talk • contribs) .
• Perhaps it would be wise if you read WP:V and WP:CORP so we're both on the same level about what is and isn't acceptable Wikipedia content. And I am not nominating this article because of the title, since that is not a valid deletion criterion. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The reason for deletion is no "Jackass copyism," but rather that the company and its products and staff are not notable enough for Wikipedia at this time. They do not meet criteria set out under WP:CORP or WP:BIO, and are also not verifiable. --Wafulz 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Who is to judge what is notable enough? There are very loose definitions and it's impossible to say! I can understand why some of what you say may breach various policies and guidelines but at the same time I feel it's far more notable than some stuff listed on Wikipedia. I shan't argue the deletion of Alan Farrey and Dumbass: The Movie but I request that Dumbass: Productions remains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jiel (talk • contribs) .

• Who is to judge? The community. Which is what we are doing right here. And basically, what you're saying is: Don't delete, because there is much worse crap hanging around. And if that's the case, please help us and nominate that other stuff for deletion as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete all. I seriously doubt any of them will remain, Jiel. You give us no reason to care about the subject of the articles or say to ourselves, "Yes, this is worthy of an encyclopedia article." The best you've given us is a movie that won a monthly award from a random website. You've got to do better than that or the article is going to be removed. Aplomado ^talk 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The reason for deletion of the original article is biased because of the connotations of the name, as shown by references to its ambiguity and the quality of similarly named "sites".

2. You do not need to care about it. This article is not relevant to you. I mean "random website" proves it - it's the biggest national Irish teen website. It is worthy of an encyclopedia article because Wikipedia is universal, international site and the article is relevant to a lot of people. This is the problem. It is not relevant to you, therefore you don't care and you have the power to delete it (or to request its deletion ;) ) Jiei 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• If the site is relevant to a lot of people, you need to show this. I don't need to care, but someone does, and you haven't proven this. We're not just going to take your word for it. Aplomado ^talk 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I prove it? Seriously? Discrimination. Jiei 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Check out WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE, and especially WP:CORP. Aplomado ^talk 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't spout that rubbish. You think I haven't read such guidelines. You read them. I'm not going to convince you because you're prejudiced, most probably American and I don't care anymore. Jiei 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm just trying to help. Aplomado ^talk 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the lot, speedy A7 Alan Farrey, and stop being such a dumbass, Jiei -- Samir धर्म 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate the fact that one prejudiced guy can dispute this, and others can simply agree and that's that. Delete away with Farry and the movie, I really shouldn't have uploaded them, but deleting the company would be wrong. Aside from that, your dismissal of SpunOut is really hurtful! I hate that mentality. It's a huge website. What, it's not american? :|
    • I'm sure SpunOut is as popular as you say, but if we start giving out articles to everyone who wins a monthly award from the myriads of teen websites on the internet, Wikimedia is going to run out of disk space.
    • Wikipedia is about building consensus. We're not all out to get you. We don't think the article is notable enough, having been given little reason to think it is. To quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Don't take it personally. Aplomado ^talk 02:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and let's not get too touchy here. Crystallina 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all -- fails to meet WP:CORP, and WP:V -- Whpq 03:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:V; company fails WP:CORP, individual fails WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total Dumbasses. --Xrblsnggt 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some stunts in Jackass suck poop; but this article sucks more poop. --Nintendude ^message 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "Alan Farrey" gives 3 google hits, and 2 of them are wikipedia. Not notable in the slightest -Ladybirdintheuk 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.