Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AGNPH (2 nomination)

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 no evidence of notability provided, no valid keep arguments put forth, WP:SNOW as delete.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AGNPH

AGNPH (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article, created by User:AGNPH, contains no assertion of notability, but because it has been deleted via AfD before (which I saw after the PROD was removed, my mistake), it is brought here. The article is essentially a run-down of the group's history, as copied from the WikiFur article, with no WP:RS to indicate how or why the site is notable. Note that the article is different from the previously deleted version; however, there isn't much in the way of encyclopedic information in this version. I recommend to delete. Kinu ^t/_c 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - See contributions - AGNPH is a WP:SPA

I added several WP:RS so you can keep the article. Please see the "References" section. What is wrong with it now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNPH (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry, none of the sources meet Wikipedia standards in my view. Also, the whole thing looks spammy, and there are potential WP:COI issues. Blueboy96 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Blueboy96, I do not have a conflict of interest, I am merely someone who enjoys wanking at pokemon hentai and who decided to choose for "AGNPH" as a username. I am not affiliated with the AGNPH website in any way.

• Keep i have added WP:RS and nobody explained why it doesn't meet "Wikipedia standards". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNPH (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Urban Dictionary? Acronym Finder? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Those are hardly reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Dramatica link. Blueboy96 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to provide reliable sources for the article, and you remove them. Why? AGNPH 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is a fine source, it even has its own article, as does Acronym Finder, which is used as a source in various other articles (examples: leet, w00t). Nothing wrong with these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNPH (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:RS and see what constitutes a reliable source. The consensus of established editors is that UD, ED, and other such websites are not reliable. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I've been involved with similar projects involving Star Trek and they are an important resource to online communities, which in my eyes makes them noteworthy and encyclopedic. Voyager640 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems like a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I suggest basing your opinion on this particular article, not the merits of others. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Again, NN newsgroup. Vanity article. - Rjd0060 17:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a vanity article. please be more polite in your comments. And what does "NN" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AGNPH (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: WP:NN is non notable. And how was I impolite? You probably shouldn't be too involved with this discussion with the conflict of interest. - Rjd0060 18:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a conflict of interest, read my comment above. I simply like the AGNPH website, what does that matter to you? I think the subject of the article is certainly notable, as i have added multiple WP:RS to the article. AGNPH —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Article provides no reliable sources, and clearly doesn't meet - r even attempt to meet - WP:N or WP:RS. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely this can be speedied under recreation of previously deleted articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sadly, no. The previous AfD was for an article on the newsgroup. This is article is on a website. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong, if not speedy, delete. What's the assertion of notability under WP:WEB? Without one, this article is a speedy target. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:WEB. —  Satori Son 02:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article was (in its entirety) copy-and-pasted from WikiFur. Although I am an AGNPH user, I heavily doubt it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. (before anyone asks, I know that WikiFur is GFDL) -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, does not meet notablility nor reliable sources guidelines. Is fancruft and WP:WEB too. Also, user name same as artcile name, could be a conflict of interest. Jeeny ^(talk) 03:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G4; This page was deleted before. Twice, in fact. You Can't See Me! 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been brought to my attention that this page may be radically different from its previous incarnations, meaning that G4 does not apply. If so, then I guess I'll just go for Strong Delete per nom. If G4 applies, though, then so be it. You Can't See Me! 03:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. -WarthogDemon 03:42, 15 October 2007 (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.