Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure Pwnage (2nd nomination)

Pure Pwnage

Non notable fan cruft. waffle iron 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

• List of Pure Pwnage episodes

• Delete as non-notable, Alexa ranking of 34,591 [1] Weak keep per Swatjester's comments --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRUFT. Royboycrashfan 06:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very highly notable amongst the first person shooter community. I say this with credentials as a member of the web-based and print computer gaming community (I was an editor at Strategy Player Magazine, and editor at PS3vault.com). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Google hits: http://www.google.com/search?hs=KCK&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22pure+pwnage%22&btnG=Search something like 284,000, including many notable tech blogs and gamign websites. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, 271,000 results to be exact --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We must be using different googles: my link shows 284,000. Oh well. give or take 5% it's still notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Pure Pwnage and merge the episode list into it. It seems somewhat notable, and an Alexa of 34k isn't too bad. I would like to see more references of its notability in the article, though, such as the major tech blogs and gaming sites mentioned by Jester. (Note: While I'm not a gamer, I've watched a few episodes of this in the past, and I feel somewhat ashamed about it...) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The show is very popular, and many people go to the Wikipedia entry for clarification of terms that they use. The Scene is not voted for deletion, and Pure Pwnage is most likely more popular. The reason stated above, Non notable fan cruft is incorrect, it is notable, and is not fan cruft. --robz0r 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The show is very popular in my opinion. Check out the real second nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure Pwnage 2. --HeteroZellous 09:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Anyone seen the eBay auction for a piece of Jeremy's hair? http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7601131682

it's up to US $4,150.00 with a total of 98 bids, and over 224,000 hits. For a lock of the main characters HAIR!? If this is anything to go by, the show has more than a few fans, and is definately notable. Silent War 09:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, although I have to admit I haven't read the article yet, therefore don't know the quality, Pure Pwnage is too big a phenomenon not to be in Wikipedia. If it's deleted I'm sure people will want to re-add it within no time. Retodon8 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this is the third time someone's nominated this for deletion. We've already established the Alexa ranking invalid, as Pure Pwnage is a webisode, not a website.66.157.30.31 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Fairly notable within certain communities. Alexa rating doesn't appear relevant in this case. Chairman S. ^Talk 11:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is decently popular. No real need to merge the list in either. kotepho 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Low alexa rating due to availabity of webisodes through bittorrent without need to visit site

Keep - Pure Pwnage is very popular worldwide and too many people watch it to consider this for deletion. The page is a great point of reference for people interested in today's gaming culture. --CharlieA 14:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This user has 37 contributions [2] ---J.Smith 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

^^^^^^^Meaning what? Is my opinion less valid than yours? What gives you the right to undermine my opinion?--CharlieA 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

uhhhhhhhhhhhh duh.com, nooob. only liek users with > 999999989 edits are allowed to vote. roflol noob. --Anaraug 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - extremely notable, popular. -- infinity0 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - My initial impression from reading the articles were that they contained so many esoteric details and were not linked from any other articles. It seemed like someone was using Wikipedia as a fan site. I'd still like to see the articles paired down or the List deleted. --waffle iron 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Appendum to my comment - I think it's probably worth contrasting Pure Pwnage to something like Mega 64. It has a DVD out and worked with Ubisoft on projects. This article is short and to the point and their list is a real list, not a supplimental article. --waffle iron 17:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Commment Response*Sorry? It hasn't stopped people on this site before. While series like Star Wars and Dr. Who are amidtablly more notable than Pure Pwnage, the fact is they have larger articles and sub articles than World War II on this site (which, is funny since the first has its own Wiki). This goes for a whole bunch of other series as well. Like for example, before I would get fansubs for Gundam Seed Destiny, I'd check here first for the spoiler's. And they were fairly extensive. So, unless you are going to attempt to be a great champion of the wiki and nominate every single one of those article for deletion, I think the PP article is fine and short in comparion.BrendantheJedi 04:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment response I hadn't thought of that but that's a great idea. Especially since I LOVE mega 64. Let me know if anything comes of that, I'll be glad to help out⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft of nn site. I am genuinely impressed by how many keep votes this has garnered, although some must surely be from enthusiasts. Eusebeus 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I went though and looked a about 6 people's number of contributions... 5 of the 6 had more then 100. 3 had more then 1000. 1 had more then 5000. ---J.Smith 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What Does that have to do with anything? The last time a I checked, this was encyclopedia could edit. So if if 20 people with only mild contributions vote to keep this, we are somehow viewed lower in opinion to one man with 1000? You stop focusing on the rep of the poster, and look more the value of the post itself. Even if someone with 2 trillion contributions says something totally stupid, that statement is still foolish. BrendantheJedi 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone with an abnormally low edit count is (purportedly) less likely to be knowledgeable about wikipedia policies and/or a sockpuppet used to vote multiple times. This isn't a vote anyways and only their 'vote' is discounted, not their view, opinion, or evidence. Of course, I am one of the people in the 100-999 range of edits under this user so take that however you will. If you care to know I have only heard of this in passing and only seen one episode. It was the googles that did it for me. kotepho 05:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a site; Pure Pwnage is a popular webisode series. By the way, how are the numbers of contributions made by these users relevant to this discussion? --HeteroZellous 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for various reasons listed above. ---J.Smith 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This page is possibly a better reference for the show than the show's own website. What's the harm in keeping it? Bchabala2 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the kind of stuff that makes me think that Wikipedia is doomed. It's too new a subject, and only time will tell if this is the start of a popular trend or just a flash in the pan. Meanwhile, this article only serves as an advertisement and an introduction to some painfully stupid in-jokes. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 23:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The first episode was released in May 2004, almost two years ago. Honestly, is that really too new? --HeteroZellous 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Too new a subject? Wikipedia is so useful because it is quick-- "wiki wiki." Moreover, how exactly does deleting a largly contributed article benifit Wikipedia? Deleting content is an awful way to promote the effort-- and I can't see how any of the arguments for deletion have justified such a move.

• Comment. I seem to have forgotten to add the comparison details in my earlier vote, so here goes: Not only was there an already large fanbase during the previous AfD almost three months ago, but it's grown considerably since with another episode released. The <200K for Google has jumped to around 300K (I just picked up 312K), Alexa ranking's jumped from 39K to 34K, his then-month-old MySpace has gone from 3K friends to almost 10K[3], and the forum members of 11K to 15K.[4] And presently, a TeamSpeak chat with the crew will be held on Saturday; I expect 300+ participants like it's happened before. Also, as said above, a lock of the protagonist's hair is going for more than US$4,000, now with over 100 bids and 225K hits, even after a bunch of relatively high bids were taken down for more safety from fake ones.[5] --HeteroZellous 01:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Extremely notable, if I recall accurately, there are already plans for the show to be picked up by a television network. Just about everyone I know has at least heard of it. --Anaraug 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.Highly notable series. Well talked about. I mean this arguably as well noted as YTMND or Penny Arcade. I don't see anyone deleting those. The FPS Doug video is reason enough. BrendantheJedi 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Arbusto 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• BOOM HEADSHOT to all delete votes ;-) but seriously, strong keep. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I don't know a single male aged 14-18 who does not know of Pure Pwnage. To say that it's not notable is simply naive. 25 March 2006
• Strong Keep Even if you did delete it someone would probably put it back (me) selmaelbeyati 10:02 25 March 2006
• Strong Keep Boom Headshot! ;) michael ^talk 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)