Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AwesomeFunny

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 no consensus, so kept.

[edit] AwesomeFunny

Delete - self-promotion NAF 03:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion for a non notable website. JamesBurns 07:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Flashcruft. Alexa traffic rating over 600K, not significant. Friday 13:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't believe that the article is self-promotion, and I would like to mention that the article previously came up for Deletion in May (see archive), with no consensus. EvilPhoenix talk 22:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • AwesomeFunny was well-known because of an internet fad, and has been steadily losing popularity. Thus, it is useful to reconsider deleting the page now, as the site is all the more nn and the Alexa rating is low. Mimsy Borogoves 13 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
• Ah, but its supposed major claim to fame, How to Kill a Mockingbird, looks likely to go. Delete per Friday. Dcarrano 01:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is no big deal (although I admit I did vote keep last time). But there's also a principle here: If this content was ever encyclopedic, then it still is. Maybe we should tighten up our practice on Internet phenomena generally, that would wash. But deleting an article on the grounds that it was once significant but isn't now is a very dangerous precedent, and that seems to be the sentiment above. The article itself might be considered a candidate for redirect and merge, just so long as the content is preserved, and the redirect makes it still accessible. But that doesn't need a VfD discussion. Food for thought? Andrewa 00:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a big "if." It never was encyclopedic, and half of it was wrong until my recent edit. (Check out the history for references to the fictional legal battle between Awesomefunny and its "rival," Funnyawesome.) Awesomefunny is not an internet phenomenon, even if "How to Kill a Mockingbird" was. And you will notice that the HTKAM wikipedia entry has been deleted. There is no matter of dangerous precedent here. The article should be deleted, not because it was once important but is no longer popular, but because it was never important, because it is self-promotative (which it clearly is, as it contains references mailing list content), because it is unencyclopedaic. Now that HTKAM is gone, Awesomefunny should follow. Mimsy Borogoves 16 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree with some of this. If this survives VfD (and to me it looks close) then I'll be nominating HTKAM on VfU to make it a redirect to AwesomeFunny, I think that's the correct process and I can't see how we can have it both ways. Agree that if the argument is that AwesomeFunny was never really encyclopedic, then there's no dangerous precedent. But that's a big if itself considering previous Alexa rankings, surely? This is just the sort of content that it's important to preserve, otherwise it will be lost. No change of vote. Andrewa 17:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrewa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep: HTKAM was tried on number of hits rather than its actual quality, and the site's responsible for other good productions too.

Comment: Please sign your votes, and don't remove the VfD notice, it's considered vandalism. Your vote will count largely according to your contribution history, and that did not help it at all. Andrewa 17:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to remove comments by other users. Its looked at as bad form. Also, I don't believe anonymous votes even count for deletion debates. Further, articles may be brought up multiple times on VfD, so there's no need to remove the tag just because it has been on VfD before. EvilPhoenix talk 21:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to break Wikipedia, but the comment was addressed to me so I felt I had the right to remove it. I'm also sorry I don't sign my posts, but that's my style. I don't see why I have to sign them, I've seen other people vote anonymously. Also, I'd rather people didn't sign them for me: you can check the history page to see who the editor is.

Comment: I think they do count, but I don't think they count for much. VfD is a bit different to national elections and the like, in that it's difficult to police someone creating a new userid each month, for example, and contributing (and voting) under each. So the admins in practice weight the votes in a quite subjective (and I believe intelligent, fair and reasonable) way. And it works quite well enough. Part of the theory behind this is that borderline votes like this one don't really matter a lot. The credibility and integrity of Wikipedia are not at risk at all here either way, regardless of what some may think. No change of vote. Andrewa 07:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Evidence for the article's claims of notability is lacking, and those claims are weak even if they were established. WP is not a web directory. Quale 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this has already passed through vfd (no consensus, but I still feel it should be kept. RickK, in response to your last comment: I find it unusual that I would have heard of it since I don't cruise the 'net for humour. It's not the best reasoning, but I figured if I've heard of it, it must be at least slightly notable. How to Kill a Mockingbird was pretty popular.). ✏ OvenFresh² 20:54, 19 July 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.