Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. cranky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. cranky

WP:WEB fail, possibly vanity page. rehpotsirhc 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 18:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it is neither a vanity page, nor does it fail WP:WEB. Criteria 1 of WP:WEB is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Mr. Cranky has been written about by Vanity Fair, the New York Times, and The Guardian, among others. It's been around since at least 1999. dirtside 19:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here. I can only find the Guardian article, and it clearly qualifies as trivial coverage under WP:WEB. rehpotsirhc 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some quick searches turned up other newspaper stories about Mr. Cranky, one of which is here. Unfortunately, most old newspaper stories require payment to access, so it's hard to get enough details to verify whether or not it's "nontrivial." Although I would submit that being written about by the New York Times is essentially nontrivial by definition. Here's a set of audio interviews with Mr. Cranky (real name Jason Katzman) in Wired, although it's from 2000 and the MP3 links are broken. There seem to be a lot of other random brief articles and mentions, as well (Google "Jason Katzman" "cranky"); enough that I think the quantity would help make up for whatever "triviality" they possess.
What if the article was about Jason Katzman instead, or about Cranky-as-person rather than Cranky-as-website? There are plenty of far more trivial web-content-only articles on Wikipedia that have as much or less notability than Mr. Cranky (a number of webcomics, for example). (Forgive (and feel free to fix) my crappy indentation formatting here, this is my first deletion candidate article). dirtside 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per dirtside and move to Mr. Cranky. A popular web site with large fan following (check the messages at the end of each movie review) and he's got a published book based on the site. GT 07:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The book is the deciding factor for me. -Colin Kimbrell 20:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I already knew about the book, thanks, and if you can get people to pay actual money for a printed copy of stuff you gave away for free on the web then I think that speaks pretty well for your notability. -Colin Kimbrell 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. I don't see verifiable evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 18 April 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.