Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoadingReadyRun

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 of the debate was delete. Given that many editors supported deletion, then later arguments for keeping were presented, there is a question here - which I believe Drat is calling attention to below - over whether those arguments have been adequately addressed. I believe they have been. Most of Basscomm's arguments were well responded to by Drat. There are several awards won which are cited in the article, other than that linked to here, but they were already in the article when it was nominated and do not appear to have persuaded editors, which seems a reasonable conclusion to me. A lot, and I mean a lot of people make short films, very few are widely seen, but whenever a sufficient number of people do stuff, they will start giving each other prizes for it. An award has to be notable itself to confer notability.

Given that and the self-promotional nature of this article (Korandder and Basscomm, the only two arguing for keep, have edited very little apart from this article and its AfD), I believe this discussion shows a consensus among editors that this group does not merit coverage in an encyclopaedia (AfD is not a vote, in case it wasn't clear already). Although not all editors have responded to the arguments presented directly, I believe it is more likely that they agreed with Drat's counter-arguments and did not feel the need to dogpile, rather than that they have simply been ignoring this discussion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

LoadingReadyRun

Nonnotable website. Alexa rank 2,643,824[1]. Differently named article on site was twice speedied. This version was sufficiently different that it was decided to give them a week or so to show notability. It's been a week and a half, and there's been no activity on the page for three days. Drat (Talk) 08:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. Please consider all arguments put forth, even for users with only a few edits. Please also consider relisting this to gain clearer consensus.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Article is not a stub, most items requiring citation have been cited. There seems to be a reasonable number of people interested in the subject matter to make it notable, Google search shows around 9000 search results[2], subject matter is well known within a community[3] -- Basscomm 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC), content has won an independant award [4] Basscomm 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment Well of course it is well known within the community of its own official forums. Also, if you filter out hits from the official site, you only get 3750 hits. Note also that all of Basscomm's 8 current edits concern the article and this nomination.--Drat (Talk) 09:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment I registered an account so my edits would have some accountability. I normally just fix typos. Their forums show that there is a reasonable amount of people concurrently interested in the topic per the Importance Guidelines. Basscomm 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment Forums are generally disregarded in terms of notability. The site only has 491 users anyway. If that's notable, we may as well have articles on every website with more than a few hundred users in their forums, because "Hey! They're well known within their own forums!" Besides, a simple persusal of the memberlist shows fully 220 of those users have never posted [5], and another 100 or so have less than 5 posts[6].--Drat (Talk) 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• comment - I've stated my case and have have attempted to follow established guidelines to state importance. I have no interest in arguing about it. Basscomm 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexa rank criteria is flimsy. Mr. Lawrence has an Alexa rank of 5,462,316 [7]. -- Basscomm 05:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - that article doesn't show any reason why that person is notable. The same goes for the other blogger articles created by the author, Mr. Babylon and Ms. Frizzle (American blogger). All three seem prod-worthy as unremarkable.--Drat (Talk) 05:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

comment Websites do not require much traffic to have influence or be notable. In fact, if one were to accept the film industry as a metaphor, many people saw "Wedding Crashers" a year ago, but that movie is non-notable in comparison to something like "The Battleship Potemkin" which has been watched by relatively few people. Now LoadingReadyRun is no Sergei Eisenstein directed enterprise, but insofar as it has (or could be argued to have) a cult following, has won numerous awards, and has repeatedly caught the interests of several larger sites, it is notable. [8]Basscomm 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

comment regarding some of the comments on your forum. It would've been nice for some of you to have gotten back to me, asking for more clarification or other ideas, etc., after I posted on your talk pages. But I wasn't going to screw around and give you a whole wiki-tutorial. I have limits on my patience. Please also note that other editors have agreed that this merits deletion.--Drat (Talk) 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

comment Do what you will. It has become clear that I can not provide information to the satisfaction of the editors. I can not speak for the other members of the forum, but I apologize if I have misinterpreted guidelines or tested anyone's patience. That was certainly not my intention. Basscomm 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

comment. No need to apologize regarding testing patience. On reflection, when I said what I did above, I should have made "I have limits on my patience" a parenthetical statement within the previous sentence.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete On the edge though --Korandder 02:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. To quote Stifle from another afd some months ago, "Isn't it funny how 'Do not delete' and 'Don't delete' only show up on this kind of article?".--Drat (Talk)
    • comment Is there another phrase that would be preferable to use to voice my opinion to not delete an article? Basscomm 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment. It's Keep.--Drat (Talk) 04:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Don’t get me wrong, I said delete, but any of you who think that it doesn’t meet the notability standards probably are just not familiar with LoadingReadyRun. That’s understandable, as many of you probably would reject an article on Robert Van Winkle for the same reason. No offense to LoadingReadyRun, but my point with the Robert Van Winkle analogy is that probably the only thing that makes them noteworthy (via Wikipedia’s standards) is a single video hosted all over the net, that appears to be by “64K” and not LoadingReadyRun, who are lucky if they even get a link on the page. Of course, a Google search for 1337, which should probably be the basis for this article’s notability, and not LoadingReadyRun itself, obviously yields confounded results that include way more than the video in question. I don’t know if I can do this, but I move for deletions based solely on the website’s nonnotability to be stricken from the record. The video was linked to by some big sites (e.g. BBSpot) and can be found on tons of video hosting sites (e.g. Google Video, YouTube, etc.) if people want to go down this road, I say they should be forced to at least change their reasoning to the fact that the popularity is so difficult to verify. Either way, I still can’t say that this article should stay. It’s apparent that Wikipedia’s focus is shifting. Whatever Wikibastards are running it now clearly want to increase its reliability at the expense of its usefulness. Perhaps you can tell by the non-neutral POV that I liked it better when Wikipedia was actually good for something, but since I alone can’t change Wikipedia’s direction, it is obvious that due to these new standards, the LoadingReadyRun article cannot stay. I’m not good with the Wikispeak, but I guess this mouthful comes down to that there are few facts or other things that the said Wikibastards consider verifiable. Again, I’m not sure how to say that in a Wikipedia way, but I figured I’d at least attempt to supply an actual reason to delete this article. Even if I don’t like the rules, I still think that the AFDs should play by them. Delete. RedNitrogen 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • comment 64k is LoadingReadyRun. Having a page about just them and not the other work LoadingReadyRun has done is a bit of a waste. I agree with the idea that it should be in wikipedia but I can also see how it does not agree with the letter of wikipedia's "law". I have to say wikipedia has come across a tad bit autocratic to me.--Korandder 05:47, 22 June 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.