Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoHomers.net

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 no consensus, after consideration of sockpuppet voting. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NoHomers.net

An article about a non-notable forum. Alexa rank for web address yields a result of 276,755. 10,500 members, sure, but how many of them are active? Kareeser|^Talk! 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like WP:VSCA. --Kinu 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, only 432 unique Google results. Royboycrashfan 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete We must keep this page, as Andy said, another forum with less members has the right to have an entry, and this site was mentioned on a DVD, so I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to keep it on here. Buh 12:31, 6 February 2006 (CST)
  • Comment: The above comment was not added by Buh, a non-existent user. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

* Delete per nom. Avi 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• • If they have been referenced by the actual producers of the Simpsons, then they are notable and the article should be Kept. Avi 04:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Don't delete. It's mentioned by the creator and producers of The Simpsons on DVD Commentary Tracks multiple times making it one of the most notable Simpsons sites on the web and most influential on a television show. There is an active community with active posts just as many other forums that are mentioned on Wikipedia. Looking Glass 09:25, 5 February 2006 (EST)
• Don't Delete As Looking Glass said. The board has been mentioned in commentaries and referenced on the show. In addition, staff of the show have held Q&A sessions on the board and visited it. It is the most well-known Simpsons site, and the Simpsons community is rather large. Rekart 21:38, 5 February 2006 (CST)
  • Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it This site is perhaps the most well known of any Simpsons forum on the WEB, it has been recognized by people who work on the show. The article is well structured and insightfull. KEEP. Curtis 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: User has only twelve contributions to a total of five articles plus this AFD. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A "non-notable" forum? Ridiculous... their community is huge and is as popular this decade as Alt.tv.simpsons was during the 1990's. The site & webmaster were also mentioned in a Blender_Magazine article this past summer (snippet from Blender). Also, this is what Simpsons creator Matt Groening and producer David Mirkin had to say about the site on one of the Simpsons DVD's: (Groening discusses NoHomers.net) AlJeanRules 23:01, 5 February 2006 (CST)
  • Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD, his user page, and the talk page of the article. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete This is a significant forum in a rather large internet community. rexgrossman 22:07, 5 February 2006 (CST)
  • Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Che-Lives has a wiki entry that has escaped deletion, and has a smaller forum than nohomers.net (had fewer than 9000 members at its height). che-lives.com's Alexa rank is 301,907. Not to accuse Che-Lives of being non-notable; rather, to note that smaller websites have had their relevance contested and have proven themselves worthy. Andy 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how a site that is officially recognized by the actual staff of the show is considered "non-notable." The active community is very large and site itself is extremely informative. Kudoshido 18:15, 5 February 2006 (HST)
  • Comment: User's first edit. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Please do not delete the wiki page on such a significant messageboard. nohomers.net is one of the best online communities you'll ever find, "Simpsons" discussion or not. Keep it. Ericbighead 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: User's only contribution. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey astroturfers, thanks for making it easy to see which ones of you are astroturfers. No authentic Wikipedian phrases their votes that way. Ruby 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No sign that this site meets our website notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: all but two of the "Dont Delete" votes above are by users who signed up today. The other two are recent. You can draw your own conclusions from that. To use a homerism, D'oh! There's already a notice saying this above --Fuhghettaboutit 05:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll admit that I'm a "sock puppet," as the site calls it, but that doesn't make the argument itself any less valid. The site has been cited on the show itself and in DVD commentaries, what other notability do you need? It fits under the Wikipedia Notability criterion #1. Reference AlJeanRules' argument to see why. --Rekart 23:42, 5 February 2006 (CST)
    • Comment: The name sock puppet is totally wrong in cases like this and we should probably change the title of the policy, but nobody has done so yet. Also the only other term known thus far is meatpuppet which is just as terrible. The point is that your arguments will be more important than the sheer number of votes. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rekart. Because you made a valid point and the number of users is enough as well. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it until now. I think it meets notability guidelines. -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Surprisingly informative article, and free of stupid forumcruft like who the moderators are and who argues with whom. As long as it stays that way, it seems worthwhile. FCYTravis 07:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fairly notable site, to the point that it was even referenced on the show The Simpsons, a fact confirmed by former director Lauren MacMullan. (screenshot of the reference) -- Gino |Talk ∙ Contribs | --Ginothewino 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep As much as I hate the sockpuppetry that is going on, it seems to be just barely notable enough to squeak by, since it appears to be recognized by the creators of the show, and referenced on the DVD's. --Wingsandsword 08:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, sockpuppet is a slight misnomer here for the policy, but the spirit of it that the raw number of comments by recently registered or anonymous editors carries little weight here needs some name, and it's most typically used in the "sockpuppet" sense of somebody inventing myriad personas to agree with them. If users of nohomers.net want to save this article, use logic and reason, persuade other wikipedians why it should be kept. Just a lot of votes saying "keep" when you are new here aren't going to go far, that's part of why the name of this process was recently changed from "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion", to clarify that it's not a simple vote, it's a discussion to come to a consensus of the community. --Wingsandsword 08:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: it's interesting how votes affirmations of "don't delete!", in those words, seem to be the mating call of the endangered forum, yet never crop up in any other AfD ; ) . Adrian Lamo ·· 08:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but I'm slapping a NOR tag on it. Those claims to notability have to be verified. Melchoir 08:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • not sure if this is what you meant, but I ripped the section of commentary in which NHC was mentioned most prominently. (commentary snippet) if this is inappropriate please feel free to remove it. EhrenS 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sock puppet supported. JIP | Talk 09:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not entirely. Melchoir 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if it is sockpuppet supported, that's not a valid reason to delete an article. Just imagine the chaos of sockpuppets supporting the keeping of a valid article just to get it deleted. Please base your vote on the article, not the people supporting it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep informative article. Site was recognized by show producers even made it onto DVDs. Notable enough for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The site is a fairly notable in Simpsons circles. ComputerJoe 10:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I think NoHomers is a very important part of the online Simpsons community. If Alt.tv.simpsons deserves an entry, then so does NoHomers. Rubber cat 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: NoHomers is probably the most popular Simpsons forum on the internet. Hell, it even recieved a mention in the season 6 commentary by Matt Groening. Keep it. Removing it from Wikipedia would be a slap in the face to all the people who over the years have made NoHomers what it is. --Wastelandsw 10:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa rank does not suggest notability, however much arm-waving might go on. The argument that other cruft justifies all cruft is not persuasive, and there is no verifiable evidence of significant external coverage. Google and Yahoo searches for inbound links reveal very little external interest, most users ever online was 471. It claims a bit over 10,000 members, but there is no way of verifying this or telling how many of these are still active (so that doesn't sound like a "huge" community to me). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment The site does not claim to have 10,000 members or over 1,200,000 posts. That is listed right on the site. That is besides the point. In this case, the notability has not been gained because it's huge (however, the size is quite decent), but because of different things that have already been listed. Those reasons are relevant.

--Looking Glass 06:58, 6 February 2006 (ETC)

• Keep : sorry, but this (soon-to-be) deletion seems to be entirely unreasonable. just because the site has decided to flood wikipedia with sockpuppets does not mean it is not notable. it has been mentioned by the writers and voice actors of the Simpsons on the DVD commentaries, twice. it has held personal, direct question and answer sessions with three other Simpsons executive producers (different ones from those who mentioned it on the commentaries). both current executive producer Al Jean and former executive producer Mike Reiss have submitted public statements to the board. It has been referenced directly on the show itself. It has at least three Simpsons animators registered as members. Alt.tv.simpsons, which has an article, has had less direct interaction with writers/actors/animators of the show, has never been referenced on the show's DVD commentaries, and has never been referenced on the show itself. And no, its numbers are not enormous, but considering it's a unofficial, privately-run forum with a specific topic, it's pretty large. --Jamieli 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think this just barely makes it under the wire of WP:WEB (if the claims of commentary on dvd and other evidentiary claims supporting notability are true). I note that if you parse the language of the WP:WEB section, a case can be made for both keep and delete. Criterion: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Is the DVD commentary a fit? First we have to look at all claims and decide whether that's "multiple." Fairly easy to say the DVD is non-trivial. But does mention in the dvd render nohomer "the subject" of this published work? I would say no. As stated in the exclusion section immediately following, this does not include "a brief summary of the nature of the content." I vote weak keep because of the (possibly trivial brief summary) mention of nohomer, but nevertheless in apparently multiple non-trivial published works. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think this site is notable, if any fan-sites ever are... and some must be. Mangojuice 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If a fan site can be major enough to have an influence on the show itself, than it should be worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article. I have actually heard the NoHomers mention on the DVD, and the way the staff talk about it, it's clear that it's an influential site. --DVD Smith 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've deleted a couple (positive) comments regarding the forum by two sock puppets who, oddly enough, are banned members of the site. Hope that's fine with you guys. :) --AlJeanRules 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If this gets kept, which I have a feeling it will, I'm going to start working on an article for the HomestarRunner Wiki, and it's going to have to be kept too for the same reasons. Not that I'm against keeping these sorts of things; I just hope we're prepared for the precident we're setting. --Maxamegalon2000 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly do you call this, then? May I depress you further? =) =) =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, but it does need to be cleaned up. Although many of these comments are by users of the forum, some do make valid points (AlJeanRules particularly), which is what we ask them to do. With one or two exceptions, I don't have any complaints about the discourse of those members that have contributed to this discussion. - N (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Over 10,000 users? Wow. Wiwaxia 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mentioned by the creators, some of them post on this forum and even mentioned on the show once. Uncke Herb 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. Sock flood. Stifle 11:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless those mentions by the creators are verified by external 3rd party sources (hosting the info on nohomers.net doesnt count as 3rd party IMHO). I will change my vote should the verification be presented. Also, the article needs cleanup as it does contain some forumcruft. Zunaid 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC). Changing vote to keep following arguments below. Article still contains extraneous info that could be pared down, however the subject seems notable. Zunaid 07:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say the DVDs/episodes themselves are perfectly acceptable, very easily verifiable sources. The main mention of the website on the commentaries is on "Homer The Great", in the season six box set. The mention of the site in an actual episode is in the episode "Sleeping With The Enemy", during the bowling alley scene. --Jamieli 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's an audio clip from a Simpsons DVD mentioning NoHomers.net (the voices you will hear are Matt Groening and David Mirkin, and this is already posted above): (commentary snippet) --- AlJeanRules 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as notable. Socks and cleanupability irrelevant to notability. Turnstep 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are so many other sites out there that are much larger and more successful that do not have their own site. It seems that this site was created by members only for the publicity, internet sites should not be given wikipedia articles because of their instability. Who knows how much longer that this site will be around anyway? Sure, it was mentioned by the Simpsons creators, but only because it's one of the few large simpsons forums out there. I can understand why Alt.tv.Simpsons has it's own article, because it was a pioneer and is still well known after 15+ plus years. Only the initials of nohomersclub were used on the show, and in the background so only members would get the reference. If the members REALLY must have an entry, why not just give them a small mention in the main article? --Scorpion0422

Scorpion0422 indicated that he wanted his comments removed [1] and seems to be having problems in doing this, so I'm trying to help out here. My personal choice is No Vote. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: User deleted his original anonymous post since he has a history of vandalism on The Simpsons. See [2] for evidence of removal of the original entry. Dr Debug and tried to remove it again(Talk) 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:10, 10 February 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.