Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"chet shakesbeare"

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "chet shakesbeare"

To be or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler to suffer
the slings and arrows of only two Google hits
or to take up arms against a sea of nonsense,
and by opposing, delete it. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Has been recreated at Chet Shakesbeare--Shanel 23:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
That page now links to this AfD as well. I'll parody more Hamlet if duplicated content so requires. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per them. delete them both. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Mysidia (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Same as for Shakesbeare, and Chet Shakesbeare, I vote Delete for all three. --Mysidia (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn - excellent nomination! Shauri 00:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reccomend the articel be kept. Have you read the links, really funny! stumbled across this when I mispelled shakespeare and now love chet!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.39.76 (talk • contribs) author of original article, probable IP addy for User:Potatoes345, author of one of the other articles — Lomn
  • Delete nn Olorin28 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Funny is not at stake, encyclopedic is. WCFrancis 03:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Vanity. / Peter Isotalo 05:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Out, damned chet. TheMadBaron 09:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the creator I will admit that I am a Chet fan and that's why I created the article. However, Chet is a humorous rising star of the internet, and there is no reason not to allow the article to remain. The article is only a very brief encyclopedic bit and provides insight into parody and Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes345 (talk • contribs) See above for authorship comments — Lomn
  • Admittedly, Chet Shakesbeare does inpart refer to a rather minor website. However, Chet's "articles" have been published in several literary arts magazines and while Wikipedia is not a web directory, there is no problem with having articles on various topics. After all, one of Wikipedia's greatest assets is its incredible breadth on a variety of subjects that few other encyclopedias discuss. Potatoes345 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a grand total of two Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is google the greatest authority on all things? Potatoes345 23:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • With no other sources to verify his existence in literary magazines, it's the best we have. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Untrue, you may consult the magazines if you so choose. At the moment I can provide you with one citation, a Chet Shakesbeare story appeared in the Delphi, a literary arts magazine. That is where I first encountered Chet. You could probably email the Chet Shakesbeare site for more information, they have a contact link. Furthermore, Google is not the best we have. Google is simply one search engine of mere web pages, Lexis-Nexis ad the like are generally considered to be more powerful tools. Potatoes345 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't choose to do so. It's up to the article's creator to supply sufficient sources to prove notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I offer the following, the articles "chet shakesbeare" (written by my brother) and Chet Shakesbeare (I'm not certain of the author) do, perhaps, deserve removal. However, the article Shakesbeare (of my own creation) should be kept. It is brief, encyclopedic, and informational with no bias whatsoever. Delete the other two if you must, but keep the article Shakesbeare. Potatoes345 23:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The non-notability of the subject would still be a problem. -- the best thing for you to do if you would like the article kept would be to add citations of evidence that verify the importance of the subject for an encyclopedia; this means not merely suggesting or asserting that shakesbeare has appeared in magazines, but citing some prominent articles -- including enough information to locate and read the source. (Just like I suggested in the conversation at User talk:Mysidia, but repeated here so it will be part of the Afd record). --Mysidia (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Once again, I am not personally aware of the locations of such articles. I myself have only seen one, in the Delphi, spring 2005 issue. I would email Chet's creators at their website (it has a contact link) but they sent me an email saying that they have blocked me as a spammer, so someone else can ask them if they want to. Potatoes345 20:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Shakesbeare is a useful article although the other two are more fan-site like than encyclopedic. Garfunkel4life 23:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the whole set. Fails Google test miserably. - Andre Engels 12:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, apparently! Ziggurat 00:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How so? Potatoes345 17:51, 1 October 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.