Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codependent Collegian (second 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Codependent Collegian

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

This article was previously kept after a "no consensus" closure at AfD. DRV overturned, holding that the AfD was under-attended, and failed to address adequately WP:V concerns. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Tony is playing red-tape games, and I don't have time for his silliness, Delete the thing, fails WP:V. Xoloz 01:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a deletion rationale. Wasn't so hard, was it? --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this some kind of POINT violation? Surely something should only be listed for deletion if someone believes it should be deleted. I'm not sure what to make of a nominator re-opening his own nomination after a close, and then providing a different rationale either. It's not good form to reverse a close regardless. What's going on Xoloz? Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The DRV ordered relisting, Mack. Tony wants to enforce silly red-tape against abstentions, and too busy to fight it -- so I express the will of the DRV (and my own opinion, too) that this has a WP:V problem. Unless you, Mack, are also in love with b'cracy, I'd suggest that we let the AfD, an expression of the DRV's consensus that this needed to be here, continue. Or, if you like, I can use the DRV to justify outright deletion -- a little extreme, since everyone said "relist", but if you and Tony wish to mire AfD in red-tape such that referrals from DRV become impossible here, it is one option that remains. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I rather dislike bureaucracy, especially the needless kind. Saying "relist" when an article survives AfD is silly--just nominate it again if you think it needs deleting! Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisting immediately after something has survived AFD will bring about calls for "speedy keep", "it was kept just yesterday", "how many times do we need to discuss this", "sanction nominator for wasting our time", etc. By sending it to DRV first, an endorsement of an early rerun can be had without that happening. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. None of the external links provided in the article support the claims of notability (i.e., reliable sources in national print publications). Closure of this AfD was out-of-process, and Xoloz's reversal was entirely justified. Deor 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Xoloz seems to be terribly confused. If Xoloz wants to delete articles he can provide a deletion rationale like everyone else or refrain from nominating for deletion articles he claims he does not want to delete. This article is completely unverifiable, so I agree with the rationale. It's just this guy's blog. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I beg your pardon? When the clear consensus at DRV is to relist, how is it wrong for someone to relist? Deor 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony's objection is that Xoloz relisted without providing a rationale to delete, an objection that I share. Relisting itself is not the issue. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I've done a check of news archives and can't find anything. Google turns up under a thousand non-Wikipedia hits. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: All participants in tonight's squabble about nothing in particular should step away from the computer for a few minutes and enjoy a refreshing beverage. Newyorkbrad 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Surely after 8 weeks since the 1st AfD nom, and 9 months of being essentially a stub, the article line "...featured in major media such as CBS, MTV, Fark, and Sports Illustrated..." could be properly attributed per WP:CITE, no? As I look at it, one Fark in external links does not WP:V make (nor is that one Fark cited properly...) LaughingVulcan 03:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  One thing this listing shows is that there is a lot of ignorance about how to get things done on Wikipedia, even amongst quite experienced editors. User:JzG, a very experienced administrator, disagreed quite rightly with the "no consensus" result in April, but he could have dealt with this by one of two very simple ways: proposed deletion or simply relist giving his rationale for deletion. The discussion would probably be over by now. Instead he went to deletion review, which took five days to do what JzG could have done in the first place.

  Since this article has already had seventeen days of discussion wasted on it, and it's obviously just some guy's blog and is composed of unsourced statements, I suggest that we cut to the chase and speedy close as delete. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:PROD would have been a highly inappropriate in this case. Immediate relist on AFD would have brought up the responses I mention above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with what Deor said. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT For it's online component, it's a blog, and on that alone it does not meet WP:WEB. It also doesn't qualify for conferred notability on the basis of what sites have linked to it or discussed it. It's not a serious work, does not confer with WP:RS, and the article does not meet WP:NPOV. Should I go on... I think not. Delete this as just another *cruft article, salt it, and make the wiki a better place. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of sources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:V. Only 72 G-hits (the lead ones being this article and mirrors), and every single one of them seem to be blogs; the purported features in/on SI, CBS and MTV somehow don't seem to have made it to any archive.  RGTraynor  15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per most everyone. While it claims notability, nothing seems to be verifiable (even things that should be easily verified). Closenplay 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – No mention found in full-text search of major publications. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the claim of mention in major publications can be sourced. if the eds. who wrote it think it was thecase, they presumably have the references. As I see it, it was relisted because there was almost no participation in the first AfD--a reasonable complaint. But now there is. DGG 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my unanswered question above and per DGG LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh w/ Me or Logical Entries} 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks reliable independent sources to verify claims of notability. Fails WP:N and WP:A. Third time's charm. Edison 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for failure of verifiable secondary sources, and Xoloz, Tony Sideaway and Mackensen all need to kindly take a step back in the future. If the three of you wish to have a private conversation about procedure, please go do so on each other's talk pages. Having never seen this article before THIS AfD I wasted my own time translating all of your bickering to absolutely no benefit before posting my opinion on this AfD, and I suspect I'm not the only editor that happened to. My apologies as I don't mean to be rude, but please minimize disruptions to a listed AfD as a courtesy to others. -Markeer 20:27, 2 June 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.