Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insert Disc Two
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete (only one valid keep vote) -- Francs2000 | Talk 
12:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Insert Disc Two
I believe this is a vanity or advertising page. I see very little internet presence for this internet show (thanks to func for doing a bit lot of research for me), and it was started only recently. Joyous (talk) 15:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The fact that it was created by a fan doesn't mean it's not meant to promote the site.
- Delete. The article is actually well written, but this show, started in early 2005, seems to fall into the vanity category. A google on "Insert Disc Two" "Chris Dunkle" turns up 14 hits, and Alexa.com has no traffic rating for the site whatsoever. I think someone was trying to use Wikipedia to promote this site. func(talk) 15:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
insertdisctwo(talk) 11:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)
- This misc. signature was added by 64.252.130.220 (talk · contribs). func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The show was actually started in mid 2004 and has a moderately small but growing following. The article was written by a fan, and not by the creators, and therefore was not created with the intent to promote the site. Google returns more hits when you don't type in the actor's name, (although they are harder to find due to the phrase being used in a lot of Easter egg and video game sites) since most mentions of the site are quotes from the show and not about the actual performers.
- Amendment: Many of the anonymous "delete" votes that have been posted here are the result of a personal vendetta waged against the show. Evidence can be found here on their forums.
- insertdisctwo(talk) 11:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)
- Delete: vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I wrote most of this article, and I intend for it to be informative rather than advertising. Ianthegecko 20:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is registered user Ianthegecko (talk · contribs). func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The Wiki seems to fit no purpose other than to promote the small show's website. There is almost no information about the show itself, except for a long list of influences and brief prior experiences. Without this information, it can be considered a promotion. 14:46, 23 July 2005 (PST)
func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment: the above user's entire edit history consists of either POV vandalism to the article being voted on or edits to this page.—chris.lawson (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I respectfully disagree with the idea that this page deserves deletion under either charge of vanity or advertising. No attempt is made to sway the reader to visiting the creators' website (ie. advertising) and it takes a neutral stance on the content. If the article had proclaimed: "Insert Disc Two is a hilarious, brilliant take on comedy", yes, that would be biased and grounds for deletion. But this article is not simply a commercial. In all fairness, the article briefly explains what the show is and simply tells of its history and influences. In short, it provides those curious about the show information to better understand it, which is what a good encyclopedia entry is supposed to do. arthur42(talk) 15:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)
- Comment. Neutral stance? The article compares itself to friggin' Monty Python and the Holy Grail!
- Comment. Except "Holy Grail" is never mentioned on the page. And it doesn't compare itself to Python, just says that the creators were influenced heavily by Python. That's like saying they got the idea to make "Men in Black" after reading "Hitchhiker's Guide", not necessarily comparing the two.
- unsigned by 67.165.217.12 (talk · contribs)
- Delete. There's no need to make a Wikipedia about this site because nobody will ever look up for it out of spite, even if it is ever mentioned by their few fans it would be linked to the website anyways.
- Keep. You are choosing to acknowledge this article as an advertisement rather than something that is informative, that is your deal. Do you also feel that a Wiki article on Brad Pitt is an advertisement? Let ID2 stay, I say.BraveJiro(talk) 11:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)
- Comment The information from the article when it was started was literally COPIED from ID2's about page, there's no reason to keep the article on Wikipedia while you can just get it from ID2's site.
- Keep. You have no apparent reason why you want this down, other then it seems like you have nothing to do. It's not like it has offended you in anywayJohnnyLawRoutine (talk) 9:37, 23 July 2005 (CDT)
- Delete per Func. Nandesuka 02:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Saying that the votes of people with a so called "vendetta" against your site is not too terribly different than how the owners are more likely than not furiously messaging all their friends on AIM to support the entry. Like it or not, insert disc two is nothing more than a website visited by the owners and their immediate friends - the guestbook only has six entries to it since april. If the site was even remotely popular it would certainly have more than this. Additionally, I might add that my own site (the one referenced in the Amendemnt above) is FAR MORE POPULAR than Insert Disc Two (avg 500-1k visitors a day when i sit around and do nothing), but an article made totally without my knowledge was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and, well, I agree that it should have been deleted.
-
- The comment: "Like it or not, insert disc two is nothing more than a website visited by the owners and their immediate friends" is both untrue and is spoken without any validity. The site's following includes a demographic containing Ireland, England, Texas, and Colorado, to name a few. Only one member is a personal friend of the producers. insertdisctwo(talk)
- Comment I'm assuming the commenter here does not consider people they talk to aim to be their friends :(
- unsigned by 64.252.134.174 (talk · contribs)
- Delete. This vote page has been vandalized by IPs. Advertising does not mean that you have to be going this is the best thing ever, just that the page exists is advertising. humblefool® 03:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- I didn't realize that was your special code. I just copied the sig of the first person I saw and changed the relavent information. My apologies again. I promise I have not been up to any foul play, I was just trying to organize the page. My OCD I guess. I have not forged any votes, and whatever vandalism happened here, I was not involved in it. If the page is deleted, so be it, I respect the whatever decision Wikipedia makes. However please know that the site has been dealing with vandals for months and they have posted an entire thread on their forums dedicated to vandalizing our Wikipedia page. This has gotten much messier than it should have. I promise not to make any other alterations in formatting. Hopefully the voting can continue in a mature, civilized, and TRUTHFUL manner. Thank you.
- Comment "just that the page exists is advertising." Then by that logic, with all due respect, so is every other article on this website. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just having trouble seeing the argument there. Merely documenting something, ie. this show, isn't advertising. The only argument that seems to be sproating here is that because the show isn't well known, any sort of referencing of it here would be a means to increase attention, and thus its advertising. In that case, their only crime is not being well-known enough, which is no grounds for deletion in my opinion. arthur42(talk) 15:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)
- Keep. Your site recently deleted an entry for another online television series, one that had a rapidly growing following. When that series originally came out, Scott Kurtz of PVP put the link on his site causing a massive increase in popularity. That series had not only Kurtz as a fan, but also a prolific Hollywood producer. In the case of that series, the creators did not make the page, nor did they modify it ever. The fact is the Internet is the new big entertainment medium. An article written by someone who has never met the creators but merely talked to them online is the same as an article written by someone who has never met a celebrity; merely had their fan mail answered. If this is advertising, any page on very minor celebrities can probably also be considered advertising.
-
- The people at ID2 are NOT celebrities, they have a low number of repeating visits when I checked their counter statistics
- unsigned by 69.208.187.132 (talk · contribs)
- The people at ID2 are NOT celebrities, they have a low number of repeating visits when I checked their counter statistics
-
-
-
- I did not say they were celebrities. I am merely saying that an article about them written by someone who has only talked to them online is no different than an article about Austin O'Brien or someone written by someone who has only corresponded via fan mail. Maybe O'Brien is much more prolific than the folks at ID2, but it doesn't make the page his fan started any less of advertising than the page ID2's fan started.
-
-
The idea that the site is visited only by people who "talk to the creators online" is completely made up. The creators of the show have, yes, talked to people online who have visited the forums on the site. However, only ONE PERSON knew them PRIOR TO viewing the show. Commenting is fine, but please at least assure that your comments are truthful.
Also, I have not forged any votes. I noticed that one person did not sign his vote. He didn't know the format to use, so I said I could just fix it for him, and I guess I got the username he gave me (JohnnyLawRoutine) wrong. I'm sorry, I didn't realize how that would look. insertdisctwo(talk)
- Weak keep. As func said, very well-written for a so-called "vanity" article. Whether it actually is a vanity article or not, well, as someone else commented, wouldn't the mere existence of any article on Wikipedia serve to stroke the ego of its subject(s)? I don't see how it has to be a vanity article merely because the two or three different individuals who have given enough of a crap to vote here haven't heard of it. (I hadn't heard of it before I stumbled across the mention on the ViP page, but I'm not willing to delete based solely on that.)—chris.lawson (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Who will actually look up info about this anyways? Stereoface 01:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Stereoface (talk · contribs)'s first edit—chris.lawson (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Who actually looks up info about half the content on this website? Ianthegecko 03:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment You're joking, right? The entire idea of wikipedia is so people can look up and read about just about anything. That's the entire concept of the site. FlyingHat 19:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Who actually looks up info about half the content on this website? Ianthegecko 03:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment Stereoface's weak argument was that "nobody will look this up, so we don't need it." Ian was simply saying there's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that very few people care about to look up, so that shouldn't be grounds for deletion. I believe Ian's point was that Wikipedia should contain information on anything that is in the public eye, just in case people want to look it up, and the statement that "nobody cares about this" is not a strong argument. As you say, the entire idea of Wikipedia is so people can look up anything.
-
-
- Delete there seems to be some sort of war going on over this article and I want to say that I hope this doesn't effect anyone's vote. Please try to judge the facts at hand. That being said, this article does not establish notability. Therefore delete as not-notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
- But is is difficult, however, to consider this show "not-notable" when there is obviously a strong following supporting it. Granted, it may not be a large or widespread community, but this show obviously has a niche following which its creators received as a result of performing both live as well as online. The fact that many of the show's fans, including the one who authored the page, have come out so strongly to support this article seems to indicate that it is notable, at least in the eyes of its growing fanbase.arthur42(talk) 18:34, 25 July 2005 (CDT)
- Above comment by 70.188.248.108, not by Arthur42 as signed.
- To quote the meatpuppet policy "The reason behind this is, for instance, that an article on an online community should not be kept merely because all members of that community show up to vote for it." Besides, if it's that popular. How come the website only has 1905 hits? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- If the owners of the site could provide some site statistics attesting to their popularity, then I'll change my vote.
- Delete for it being non-notable, and kill all sockpuppets. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry! The 2nd above comment was in fact written by me. I just realized that I forgot to sign in when writing it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. arthur42(talk) 19:22, 25 July 2005 (CDT)
- Delete nn advertising. JamesBurns 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I already voted, and I don't want to start a fight, and I hope what I'm saying isn't misinterpreted at all, but I don't see how votes that simply say "delete, advertising" can be considered valid when there have been many points listed as to why the entry is not advertising. If you could provide some reasoning as to why you still consider it to be advertising, that would help things make a little more sense (for me, anyway).
"Besides, if it's that popular. How come the website only has 1905 hits?" I think I should probably clarify an earlier comment of mine before it causes further confusion. I defended the show as having a "strong" following. By that, I meant "devoted," as opposed to "large" or "widely popular." My mistake. On a seperate note, perhaps a possible solution would be a compromise. That is, to have the article's author/authors edit the site so it feels more in line with Wikipedia policy and less as a vanity or advertising page, since so many people here seem to feel that it is. Just a thought. arthur42(talk) 13:04, 26 July 2005 (CDT)
-
- I've watched some of the videos and I actually think it's quite funny. You may well have a strong cult following. BUT, I'm sorry, it (IMO) is not currently notable enough for an entry in an encyclopedia. Try again when ID2 has gained wider recognition.
- Also, I took a look around and I can't see any votes that just say "Advertising". Some say "nn advertising" or "vanity, advertising". This doesn't mean the article is written in a POV way. It means that the voter doesn't consider the subject notable enough for an article. Thus the existence of the article itself may be considered advertising or ego-stroking.
- That's all I've got to say.--JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Show is very new and does not appear to have had any influence outside of its extremely limited fanbase. At the moment, the number one result for a Google search on "Insert Disc Two" ([5]) is this vote for deletion page--beating out the official website. While that is probably only the result of fans and foes of the show link-spamming to attract votes, the fact that a VFD page was able to exceed the Google ranking of the show's official website in such a short time is, in my view, a fairly clear indicator of its lack of notability. Aquillion 04:50, 5 August 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.
