The result was Delete. This is a tricky one. Although the keep votes vastly outnumber the delete votes, the arguments made by the delete votes are greater than those made by the keep votes. Looking over reasons for sources proving notability, 13 out of 18 are from the site itself, Ref 7 doesn't work, two more refs only link to sites that have it in a directory, and the last two are from other sources that could establish notability but fall just below the line. The majority of keeps are per previous consensus (I closed that one also), and claims that other less notable subjects have articles. Neither of these address the issues list in the nom or by opposes. Therefore, although the votes say keep, the strength of arguments say delete. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a joke page that reflects the opinions of a joke website. It is not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not where it states 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Thus, the consensus of consensus (a meta-consensus) would suggest the article ought to be deleted. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) - From GateHouse News Service.{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) - From GateHouse News Service.{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)I am also disturbed that several of the references are to articles which do not exist or cannot be read. Tb ( talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. This is a tricky one. Although the keep votes vastly outnumber the delete votes, the arguments made by the delete votes are greater than those made by the keep votes. Looking over reasons for sources proving notability, 13 out of 18 are from the site itself, Ref 7 doesn't work, two more refs only link to sites that have it in a directory, and the last two are from other sources that could establish notability but fall just below the line. The majority of keeps are per previous consensus (I closed that one also), and claims that other less notable subjects have articles. Neither of these address the issues list in the nom or by opposes. Therefore, although the votes say keep, the strength of arguments say delete. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a joke page that reflects the opinions of a joke website. It is not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not where it states 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Thus, the consensus of consensus (a meta-consensus) would suggest the article ought to be deleted. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) - From GateHouse News Service.{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) - From GateHouse News Service.{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)I am also disturbed that several of the references are to articles which do not exist or cannot be read. Tb ( talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply