Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.175.123.49 (talk) at 16:57, 25 March 2006 (→[[Pure Pwnage]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pure Pwnage

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

^^^^^^^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)[reply]

uhhhhhhhhhhhh duh.com, nooob. only liek users with > 999999989 edits are allowed to vote. roflol noob. --Anaraug 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But, you could be a long time lurker. Also sometimes I've made edits not with my account. In any case I know what cruft is, but I also know as long as their is at least 125 articles about mobiles suits, I don't think the cruft is well enfornced. I know wiki prefers to look at itself as encyclopedic, but this in an encyclopedia that be edited on the internet. Because of the demographic, the articles on this site may lean towards geekish followings. They can only go after smaller things like Pure Pwnage on occasion, since they still feel the futile need to look sophisticated. But we all know if they tried to cut down on articles on Star Wars, they attept would most certainly fail (unless of course it was a character article about obscure person in the fandom).-67.175.123.49 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 "last resortish" kind of move.66.157.30.31 13:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Arbusto 06:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BOOM HEADSHOT to all delete votes ;-) but seriously, strong keep. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pure_Pwnage_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=45436030"