Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StickDeath
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 was delete Lots of Wikipedians like it, but no evidence was presented that it meets WP:WEB. W.marsh 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] StickDeath
Does not meet WP:WEB criteria for notability. The article does not attempt to meet the criteria. The article is undersourced and contains weasel words. Alexa shows that it may have been popular in 2000 but its rank has dropped steadily since its inception as a website. Ultimately, just not seeing its validity as an article. ju66l3r 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see why the the article still exists...fails WP:WEB and WP:WEASEL. Sr13 09:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Famous at the time. Either these articles (ones about people/things that will not be famous in 20 years) should never exist - and then we delete almost the entire wikipedia - or we should keep this article. Dave 13:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If it really was "famous at the time", this should be a simple matter. Uncle G 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was pointing out that if we delete articles about subjects that were famous, but no longer are, like this article, then we would have to remove a heck of a lot of wikipedia (although that would get rid of a lot of the cruft, which could be a good thing...) Dave 03:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Uncle G's argument has nothing to do with the article having been famous. It has to do with sources. If you can provide reliable non-trivial third-party source coverage, the article stays. Otherwise, the article goes. ColourBurst 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was pointing out that if we delete articles about subjects that were famous, but no longer are, like this article, then we would have to remove a heck of a lot of wikipedia (although that would get rid of a lot of the cruft, which could be a good thing...) Dave 03:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If it really was "famous at the time", this should be a simple matter. Uncle G 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB, and I don't see any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - 5 minutes of internet "fame" does not mean notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think that this is more or less what stickdeath had. Nevertheless, it sticks in my mind, as it probably does for almost everyone who was a teenage nerd in 2000. I have tried to find verifiable sources, however, and have failed. Perhaps WP:WEB needs updating? Dave 03:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's hard to trust an article without a third-party reliable source vouching for the content. It not only fails WP:WEB, it fails WP:V and verifiability's one of the core policies on Wikipedia. ColourBurst 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think that this is more or less what stickdeath had. Nevertheless, it sticks in my mind, as it probably does for almost everyone who was a teenage nerd in 2000. I have tried to find verifiable sources, however, and have failed. Perhaps WP:WEB needs updating? Dave 03:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep if the article can be fixed. Was very notable for a time, decline in popularity does not detract from this. --Fittysix 18:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Widely known was featured on a TV program, if only I could remember what. I'm amazed this is up for deletion I don't think it fails WP:WEB. Mallanox 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. The idea that it was featured on a television program makes a case, but without it, it fails WP:WEB. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Dave and Mallanox. Dionyseus 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No references prove notability. Edison 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This was quite popular in its time, though admittedly it didn't remain so. However, I'm under the opinion that once something is notable enough to deserve an article, always notable to have the article; in other words, things can't lose notability. Keep for historical purposes. --The Way 09:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is, however, necessary to demonstrate that they are in fact notable in the first place. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Not a single source has been cited to demonstrate this so far. Uncle G 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Question: Can the original poster tell me how to make Alexa statistics go back to the year 2000? I can't figure how to make them show up any earlier than 2002. If the website was indeed popular in 2000, my vote would be a "keep" for the reason given by Uncle G & The Way. Esn 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Popularity as determined by an Alexa ranking is not a substitute for reliable sources. ColourBurst 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I've heard of this, and although it would be difficult to source, I think it's valid as an article. Nihiltres 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unless WP:WEB is met, then there is no question about it. Having heard of it is not enough, we need multiple, independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability. I need to make a macro for that last sentence. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep' This was a popular website and part of internet meme history.Ocatecir 05:02, 25 November 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.
