Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMoo

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 of the debate was speedy deleted (G7) by author request. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMoo

Non-notable web-based software toy. This was originally put up for speedy delete for this reason, but the article's author has debated it in the article's talk page, so I thought this could do with some wider consensus Barneyboo (Talk) 17:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted. eMoo is not only a software toy but is a cult icon in our local peer group. It is a humorous item we have and we would like to share it with the world. This is my first article and I am upset that you choose to riddicule something of ours, which I have prooved noteable. My Website is noteable as it provides graphical design services (3rd Party Reference: VGFuture). eMoo is neither rude or offensive and is a fully justified existant item.

The page you cite is not in itself of note - its forum has less than 100 registered members, for example. Also, please put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages so we know who's posting :) Barneyboo (Talk) 18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Carlsoft Designs does not pick or choose whom it designs graphics for based on the size of the website but on discussions and relations with the website owner. (sorry, didn know about the tidle thing) CarlBooth 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but that is irrelevant. You originally cited the website as evidence of a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, which it is not. It does not show the notability of your website, or of EMoo. Barneyboo (Talk) 18:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well how can I proove its notability then? The site is notable to people that use the graphical design services. And btw, its eMoo :) CarlBooth 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm trying to show you in a fairly long-winded way that if you can't prove its notability, it's because it is not notable ;) Barneyboo (Talk) 18:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel it is notable. Why are you being a Kill Joy? Im not offending anyone or causing trouble I'd jsut like our cow to be on wikipedia for people to chuckle about when browsing. CarlBooth 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm appearing to be a killjoy is because I choose to isolate the article from its author. You made a perfectly valid point that there are many policies, guidelines and criteria and it's close to impossible to know which are enforced, which are just unspokingly assumed and which are ridiculous. So, whilst this article is unlikely to threaten any endangered species, and I'm unlikely to lose too much sleep over it, I still have to make a judgement based on the various widely held perspectives about matters such as this. It just so happens there IS a widely-cited guideline for this very type of article, and since I have seen no verifiable evidence that it meets the criteria of WP:WEB the judgement I've had to make is that it is in Wikipedia's best interests to not include a somewhat frivolous advertisement. Make sure you've had a look at WP:NOT for similar information. Barneyboo (Talk) 18:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell that noone really cares? Its a bit of fun for christ's sake. 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC) MrLiam

• Keep. verifiable. For great justice. 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would I advertise an 8-ball? I have removed the link to my website to show I have no interest in using it as advertisement. It is purely intended as an ammusing article to brighten the day of people who read it.CarlBooth 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. an ammusing article to brighten the day of people who read it? I was under the impression this was an encyclopedia we were working on. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. for cyring out loud, what is it with you people? I cant be bothered with you anymore, ive wiped the article and you can do wtf you want cos your all idiots. im just trying to make people smile and if all you can do is sit at your computer all day picking holes and pull it to bits then thats pretty sad for you.CarlBooth 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nn per their own admission: "a cult icon in our local peer group." --Hetar 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[sarcasm]Your observant![/sarcasm] You clearly havent read that I would now like this article deleted.

• Delete non-notable meme(?) and unencyclopedic. Don't take it personally CarlBooth; you can make people smile at your website, but this is an encyclopedia.--Isotope23 19:12, 6 April 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.