Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Secret Squirrels

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Secret Squirrels

• Club vanity, and their greatest claim to notability is having their Wikipedia article deleted. Non-notable/vanity in pure form. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It was already speedy deleted. I also appear to be in a revert war over at squirrel concerning whether the secret squirrels are notable enough to belong in that article. --Aranae 04:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN group of friends. They even state that their articles usually get deleted. Cnwb 05:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 05:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. They are wrong here, the articles are not being deleted because they're by anonymous authors, they're deleted because their subjects are not notable. — JIP | Talk 06:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Super Secret Speedy delete unverifiable nonsense. Let's help these squirrels remain secret. --Johntex\^talk 08:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, they admit to being deleted before and they're unverifiable by reliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Secret Squirrel. This is very similar to the name of the re-hashed Secret Squirrel cartoons in the 1990s. Grutness...wha? 12:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• ""Keep"". It's notable to about 1k people in the Washington, DC area. It doesn't have anything to do with the Secret Squirrel cartoons. I moved this over from Squirrel, because someone created it there, and it certainly doesn't belong there. I added the "articles are deleted", because it kept getting yanked without listed reason, which, well, isn't exactly a model of politeness. Looking through the Deletion Policy and What Wikipedia is Not, this seems a legitimate article. It *doesn't* get deleted, I'll be glad to expand it beyond it's current near-stub state. That said, please *don't* redirect it to Secret Squirrel, as the topics are entirely unrelated.Talldean 14:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not really relevant whether or not there's a connection between what this article is currently about and Secret Squirrel. The main thing is that the current article is deletable, and it is viable that someone searching for the renamed "Super Secret Squirrel" cartoon would try searching with an -s on the end of the third word. that makes this title a reasonable redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The cartoon is 'Secret Squirrel'. If they added a 'Super' to the beginning and pluralized it, that'd make more sense. Thus, redirect probably isn't the best idea. Talldean 14:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The 1990s remake was called "Super Secret Squirrel" - close enough that someone could get one letter wrong. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Please. (How's that for polite?). Marcus22 14:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, at least it's polite; I can't really ask for much more on this one. Talldean 14:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability.--Isotope23 16:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While I am new, the actual measurable notariety of this social group is effectively irrelevant to whether or not this article meets the grounds for deletion. The idea is whether or not this article actually contributes to wikipedia as an encyclopedic article. Ideally the test for this with respect to vanity articles is whether or not someone who is not a member or owner of the group would write an article about the group (in this case, since we are referring to a social group.) I have done some basic research and have found independent references to them, specifically to their so-called "dj takeovers of clubs". Furthermore, it can be argued that documentation of the social state of an existing counter-culture, regardless level of localization, is necessary. Taking into consideration their "dj takeovers" at locations such as Nation in Washington, D.C. and Singapore Bistro (also in Washington, D.C.) it is evident that they play a role in the "rave" counter-culture of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Nation is a nightclub of nationwide notariety, on par with Twilo of New York, NY and Bed of Miami, FL. We are fast approaching the effective end of the rave counter-culture in this portion of the United States. This makes it ever more imperative that we document as much as possible of this important portion of American history. This particular social group claims to be the evolution of a group that once contributed greatly to this counter-culture. Lastly, it's necessary to define the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Currently the Washington, D.C. metro area is one of the largest metropolitan areas, encompassing a vast portion of northern Virginia, USA and Baltimore, MD, USA. Given this evidence, I see no reason to deem this article non-encylopedic, on the condition that it is expanded beyond the current stub-like state. Metagrapher 20:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, completely unsourced. Quale 23:09, 7 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.