Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramifications Thereof 2

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 I'm going out on a limb and saying delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramifications Thereof 2

Renomination. The last AFD was closed as a keep, with the only keep votes being cast by new users (one of whom is the creator of the show). I think it needs more examination. Googling "Ramifications Thereof" is tricky, as it's a pretty damn common phrase, but "Ramifications Thereof" "cable news" -wikipedia got me 15 unique hits (most not related to this). "Ramifications Thereof" zen master -wikipedia got me 36 (again, most not related). By "cable news" I think it means "public access", which is usually not encyclopedic. At the last AFD one user said "From what I can tell, this show does have a following in Northern California" but didn't give any evidence, and I can't find any. -R. fiend 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• aloof to the relevance police this is my program. that is my true and legal name. it airs on public access stations just north of san francisco. it certainly has merit in my opinion. find me another program in the united states that airs photos of war casualties, which i do, respectfully, for a few minutes at the end of each program. honestly, i think its the most relevant cable information source from san francisco to seattle but i will certainly lose no sleep over its deletion from an information pool which could equal ably be attributed as possessing questionable significance, also.

i don't know how many people watch it. it's unverifiable and i'm philosophically opposed to polling. polls are used to influence opinion rather than reflect it. please don't participate in them.

not that its really anyone's business... i spoke with james s. as a result of a conversation we had concerning a three hour interview i did in berkeley with leuren moret, a former whistleblower at lawrence livermore national laboratory and renowned scientific specialist on depleted uranium munitions.

in summation: i dont give a shit what you do. life must be good if this is all you have to worry about. you know you've arrived when you have nothing left to prove. peace out.Zen Destiny 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete as an unverified TV programme that currently has no information on notability. Tricky one, though. Stifle 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment for now Article is completely uniformative. Maybe if it had some meat it would be worth keeping. Like links to streaming videos or transcripts or something. As it is it doesn't even say what city it's in, what channel, what time. If it's trying to inform me, it's failing. GangofOne 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Among other things, I find it difficult to believe that a real news program would be unprofessional enough to be produced by someone using such a silly pseudonym. At best, it's somebody's cable access show, at worst, it's a deliberate hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on my conversations with producer, the show does play on cable access but I believe it exceeds the 5,000-audience notability threshold. I have invited Zen to expand the article. Sorry about the apparent unfamiliarity with name styles in California. --James S. 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But can you verify any of this beyond conversations with the producer, which are hardly sufficient? -R. fiend 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified and (so far) unverifiable. "Because I said so" is not verification, especially if you don't explain how you came to be talking with him in the first place. And since, as I understand it, the 5000-audience threshold means 5,000 people actually watching it, not just potentially, you'd better have the ratings book to demonstrate audience share. --Calton | Talk 05:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I still say keep on this. The show may or may not have a following in its home market. I believe it should stay. Secondarily, I dont agree with renominations so quickly after an intial AfD.Phantasmo 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton, though if verified I may change my vote. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:01, 20 January 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.