Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech Support Comedy
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The result was withdrawn. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tech Support Comedy
Fails WP:WEB in all aspects, inside joke filled page, etc. ElbridgeGerry 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn. I've spoken with the TSC community, and after this cleanup, the article looks much better. Although directories aren't strictly "sources", this site's been in plenty of "best of" lists. - ElbridgeGerry 13:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not voting due to a potential conflict of interest, however, I have come across a ZDNet article from 2001 that gave significant mention to this site. It was also a Best of the Web Directory editor's pick this past September. Resolute 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- One's a directory, which WP:WEB says are no-nos for notability and the other is one minor reference. WP:WEB wants "multiple, non-trivial" mentions. - ElbridgeGerry 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of policy, thanks. I introduced them into the debate for others to consider, nothing more. Resolute 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- My previous statement was not meant as an attack. I apologize if it came off as such. - ElbridgeGerry 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of policy, thanks. I introduced them into the debate for others to consider, nothing more. Resolute 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- One's a directory, which WP:WEB says are no-nos for notability and the other is one minor reference. WP:WEB wants "multiple, non-trivial" mentions. - ElbridgeGerry 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- very weak delete a clever editor with no COI could possibly remove all spammy and POV-ish content and include only information that is cited and meets WP:N. Without such effort done, it's hard to tell right now if this would be feasible or not. I am !voting delete, but with no predudice against recreation per my previous statement. Jerry lavoie 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- This seems like a plausible course of action. Right now the article is very crufty. - ElbridgeGerry 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I removed pretty much all of the cruft, dropping it back to the opening two paragraphs, which detailed the site itself fairly well. Resolute 07:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- This seems like a plausible course of action. Right now the article is very crufty. - ElbridgeGerry 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per nominator's withdrawl. Resolute 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 26 February 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.
