The result was Speedy delete as reposted deleted material. This comes up on DRV under the name "Angry Nintendo Nerd" every couple of weeks or so, never with any convincing reason to undelete and always with a unanimous consensus to keep it deleted. There is no reason to go through this again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The original article on this subject Angry Nintendo Nerd was deleted after an AfD. The Angry Video Game Nerd article was originally protected to prevent it being used to recreate Angry Nintendo Nerd. After AVGN was unprotected it was recreated on January 16 covering the material from the original ANN article, despite there being no deletion review to overturn the original AfD. So technically this article could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:G4. However I'd rather open discussion to the community. There is a claim of notability, but the only reliable source cited is a brief mention of one of James Rolfe's online reviews being shown in the background of an MTV report on internet celebrities. This doesn't seem to reach the requirements of WP:BIO, so I believe unless further sources can be found this article should be deleted and salted to prevent further recreation as the subject is not notable and the article is not properly verifiable. Gwernol 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This person is probably the only thing on this planet mentioned in nine other languages including German [1], Japanese [2], Swedish [3], Dutch [4], French [5], and Hebrew [6] and still not be considered worthy enough to be on here.
He's been translated into Spanish [7] and Portugese [8].
He was even mentioned on MTV (youtube link is down) and Poland's largest gaming magazine [9]. You guys have to be doing this out of pure arrogant spite. Richard Cane 11:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I asked a whole bunch of questions the people on here couldn't be bothered to answer so perhaps if you want to, you know, follow the rules of Wikipedia for once, you could answer them so this won't keep being brought up. Richard Cane 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Let me get this straight.
If people from many different countries who speak nine different languages have noticed something it still isn't notable because IGN hasn't written an article about it?
If millions on youtube have been watching him, and Alexa confirms those millions, that isn't verifiable because they aren't "independent of the subject". What entity has taken control of Alexa and youtube to make them biased in favor of this character? Richard Cane 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
MTV isn't enough obviously. This site is run by elitist, jealous idiots. 216.37.86.10 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
You know, if I didn't know better, I'd accuse the Wikipedia elitist society of taking kickbacks from IGN or Wired News or CNN. What does this guy have to do to get an article, shoot the president? He's been listed on legitimate media outlets, the people clearly want an article. So why is all this even an issue? PlayItBogart 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm going to explain what's happening in detail because I think you people are really confused about all this newfangled technology.
Remember in the old days when people needed things to be mentioned in books, newspapers, and television for it to be famous?
Nowadays, we have this magical invention called the Internet. Through this amazing advancement in technology we can quantify something's popularity without the need of publications telling us something is famous, because we already know!
Have you heard of blogs? Notice how new they are and how they don't rely on the media to obtain information? That's the age we're living in.
Now, five years from now, gramps, you're going to look pretty silly when you look back at yourself insisting that something wasn't notable because a publication didn't make it official when millions upon millions already knew about it because they realized things had changed when you didn't. Richard Cane 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as reposted deleted material. This comes up on DRV under the name "Angry Nintendo Nerd" every couple of weeks or so, never with any convincing reason to undelete and always with a unanimous consensus to keep it deleted. There is no reason to go through this again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The original article on this subject Angry Nintendo Nerd was deleted after an AfD. The Angry Video Game Nerd article was originally protected to prevent it being used to recreate Angry Nintendo Nerd. After AVGN was unprotected it was recreated on January 16 covering the material from the original ANN article, despite there being no deletion review to overturn the original AfD. So technically this article could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:G4. However I'd rather open discussion to the community. There is a claim of notability, but the only reliable source cited is a brief mention of one of James Rolfe's online reviews being shown in the background of an MTV report on internet celebrities. This doesn't seem to reach the requirements of WP:BIO, so I believe unless further sources can be found this article should be deleted and salted to prevent further recreation as the subject is not notable and the article is not properly verifiable. Gwernol 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This person is probably the only thing on this planet mentioned in nine other languages including German [1], Japanese [2], Swedish [3], Dutch [4], French [5], and Hebrew [6] and still not be considered worthy enough to be on here.
He's been translated into Spanish [7] and Portugese [8].
He was even mentioned on MTV (youtube link is down) and Poland's largest gaming magazine [9]. You guys have to be doing this out of pure arrogant spite. Richard Cane 11:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I asked a whole bunch of questions the people on here couldn't be bothered to answer so perhaps if you want to, you know, follow the rules of Wikipedia for once, you could answer them so this won't keep being brought up. Richard Cane 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Let me get this straight.
If people from many different countries who speak nine different languages have noticed something it still isn't notable because IGN hasn't written an article about it?
If millions on youtube have been watching him, and Alexa confirms those millions, that isn't verifiable because they aren't "independent of the subject". What entity has taken control of Alexa and youtube to make them biased in favor of this character? Richard Cane 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
MTV isn't enough obviously. This site is run by elitist, jealous idiots. 216.37.86.10 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
You know, if I didn't know better, I'd accuse the Wikipedia elitist society of taking kickbacks from IGN or Wired News or CNN. What does this guy have to do to get an article, shoot the president? He's been listed on legitimate media outlets, the people clearly want an article. So why is all this even an issue? PlayItBogart 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm going to explain what's happening in detail because I think you people are really confused about all this newfangled technology.
Remember in the old days when people needed things to be mentioned in books, newspapers, and television for it to be famous?
Nowadays, we have this magical invention called the Internet. Through this amazing advancement in technology we can quantify something's popularity without the need of publications telling us something is famous, because we already know!
Have you heard of blogs? Notice how new they are and how they don't rely on the media to obtain information? That's the age we're living in.
Now, five years from now, gramps, you're going to look pretty silly when you look back at yourself insisting that something wasn't notable because a publication didn't make it official when millions upon millions already knew about it because they realized things had changed when you didn't. Richard Cane 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply