Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure Pwnage 2

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 --Ichiro 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Pwnage

KEEP ITprevious AfD
Not encyclopedic. Fails WP:WEB, 200K google but nothing substantial (and drops to 600 when we include the main character's name to eliminate some false positives.) One unrelated news hit, Alexa just shy of 40,000. Delete unless evedence of notabilty produced.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete apparent vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, how exactly does it fail WP:WEB??? It does have a forum with over 10000 registered members, and adding the main character's name does not necessary eliminate false positives in the most efficient way. - secfan 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community" (emphasis mine). And provide some meaningful links for us to examine, I did preface this with "unless evedence of notabilty produced". - brenneman(t)(c) 15:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep WP:WEB is for websites, not for video shows. There are far more people that watched the episodes than those that visited the site. Just the fact that there are many people editing this article, and it gets vandalised 5 times a day demonstrated notability.  Grue  16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please WP:CITE for "far more". I'm not drooling over deleting this, I'd just like to see something WP:V to show it's notable. - brenneman(t)(c) 16:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is somewhat of a big hit amongst gamers and I know many non-gamers who are aware of it too. Considering the video is known here in the UK, I'd say that was a big enough impact. Therefore, keep. Kel-nage 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, See above Zerak-Tul 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to sound like a broken record, but testimony of wikipedia editors is not a source. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion where we attempt to determine both community consensus and appropriateness according to encyclopedic standards. Many closing admins will disregard recomendations that aren't supported by verifiable statements. Please you guys, just give me something I can work with. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Require cleanup, but article itself should be kept. Infinity0 talk 00:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
Technology company works with Pure Pwnage team
AusGamers host file, so quite possible it is liked on the other side of the world from where it is filmed
UK interest in Pure Pwnage
Discuss TV have posts on it...
That's from the first 20 pages of Google hits. I believe that would show it had had some effect outside it's community. Oh, and most of them don't name the lead characters, so your "elimination of false positives" was more like elimination of anything that didn't give the full storyline. In fact, a Google search with FPS Doug included gets 10,200 results. Kel-nage 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per excellent comments above. -- JJay 03:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Site's forum shows 11672 registerers. Within minutes of the last episodes release, hundreds of people already started downloading via bittorrent (500 or so, I recall). It barely fails the google test, and by its pattern, within the next episode's release it'll pass all tests. This article already voted keep last time. Unsigned comment left by user:Ncannino.
  • Change Subject The title sounds like the gaming concept of "Pure Pwnage," which should be an article. The article's picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nonoobs.jpg is good and demonstrates the concept. Yet, the article is about some website and pretty boring. "...is a webisode series by ROFLMAO Productions featuring a Canadian professional video game player named Jeremy. The show portrays the making of one "gamer's life". Settings for the show include Toronto and occasion..."  ::ho hum:: It's all this person's life and that. Power Gaming is an article. God-moding, too. So "Pure Pwnage" should be, but not about some cheezy website. DyslexicEditor 10:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh? There is no gaming concept of "Pure Pwnage".  Grue  12:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What competitive online gaming have you done? Ownage, Pwnage, Owned, Pwned, Pure Ownage, Pure Pwnage. It's an expression that means to beat someone easily. In military for instance, the 2-week (or so) destruction of Iraq's former government (the aftereffects were bad, but the initial victory was easy), The Vogons destruction of earth, Darth Vadar or The Lexx blowing up a planet. Or you play a board game with someone and have such an easy victory you win in 2 moves. DyslexicEditor 13:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
There is already an article on pwn. Also, articles are there not to amuse yourself, so "the article is pretty boring" is a quite dumb thing to say.  Grue  13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of articles are fascinating, including science and math ones. Those aren't boring to me. Thanks for the link to the article name. Odd in pwn 5 "citation needed" tags. I've often seen editors remove the information if it's unproven, as well as remove citation tags claiming it is unnecessary, as well as articles filled with information lacking citations that can be proven wrong (and editors revert any citations that prove otherwise), etc. DyslexicEditor 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Since there is already an article on this subject, I'm not sure how to vote. Basically I think the article needs a lot of revising. DyslexicEditor 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you may've missed what the article concerns. The article does not discuss the concept of "pure pwnage" (i.e. those frags looked like pure pwnage). The article concerns the popular web based show about a gamer's life. It has little to do with the "pwn" article. Ncannino 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree it is vanity. --Zachary Murray 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems like it may be somewhat vain now, but I don't think one should go as far as to delete the entire article. It definitely requires cleanup, and then perhaps some information on its impact on society. At the moment, I can't find any more good evidence of notability to add to the ones above. The best thing I can say (empirically) is that I've played in lots of CS:S servers with a large amount of players, and in many of them, there are people who seem to recognize the "BOOM HEADSHOT!" and FPS Doug when I acted like an FPS Doug fanatic (for jokes, of course). Hope that can help, somehow. --HeteroZellous 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and culturally significant. Plus, it survived a previous AfD, which to me indicates that a renomination needs to have a very strong and compelling reason. Turnstep 19:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be non-notable and vanity. Stifle 02:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very obvious keep Not to be too vulgaric here, but all I can say is FUCK YOU. 11 000 registered forum members, and let's say, that about 4/5 of every viewer does not register, yet regularly follows the show? Dig your fucking head off your ass, if you want to go CONTRIBUTE to Wikipedia, (which you obviously can't, but you should give it a try) then go CREATE and ADD, don't fucking start PROPOSING DELETION OF A REMARKABLE THING such as Pure Pwnage. Now may I ask you, have you ever fucking even visited the website, seen any episode, or otherwise fucking seen that Pure Pwnage is a serious project and has at least 40 000 viewers and 1,5 million web page hits?
    • Free advice: the only thing your rant above did was made me itch to change my vote from Keep to Delete. I didn't (nor would I in principle) but please observe WP:CIVIL. Turnstep 23:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think better said than the above rant: it looks obvious to me that someone took a glance at the article and thought "a videogame show? words like noob? this must've come from some teenagers and can't possibly entertain an intellectual like myself." Then that person decided his lack of interest qualifies as vanity and should merit deleting something that many people, in fact, have interest. 65.6.109.43 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If popularity may be a factor for some...
•The Pure Pwnage forums constantly have dozens of users online – typically 100+ during the eastern North American evenings.
•Judging by many of the member profiles, the forums seem quite international.
•As well, shortly after the release of Episode 9, one can see from the statistics at the bottom that the number of simultaneous forum users reached 915!
•A Live TeamSpeak chat at the Episode 7 release (when the PP community was smaller than it is now) contains a bunch of info about Pure Pwnage by the way. 62:00 explains the fanbase of an estimated 300K. Some other parts (for which I don't have the timecode, unfortunately,) tell that Jeremy's starting to get recognized pretty often on the streets, that there were hundreds of users tooned into the TeamSpeak channel at the same time, and more possible evidence of popularity. --HeteroZellous 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The videos has culture impact. SYSS Mouse 02:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Kingturtle 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Definately Keep. DeathStarr 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- but needs some work
•For anyone who is in doubt of the popularity of the show, please keep an eye on Jeremy's Myspace Page. The myspace account was created on December 16th, 2005. In less than a month the account has 3285 friends in Myspace.
•I believe that the descriptions of the individual episode plots should be deleted because they have nothing to do with the show's importance, and that they detract from the humour of the show. Facts such as the release date, the running time, and memorable moments (songs, quotes, shots, etc) should be the only items included in the episode descriptions.
•The entry should be kept, as the top search results on both google and teoma for the term "Pure Pwnage" is Pure Pwnage
•I beleive that just like Homestar Runner and Red vs. Blue, this webisode does not only entertain people, but also inspires people of the internet generation to put not only their humor, but their art, out there in html, and let the surfers, not the critics, decide what is valuable. -- Deagrathen 08:44, 10 January 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.