Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Gryphon

The result of the debate was delete [added by Andre🚐 23:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats]

2 Gryphon

OLD VOTE 1st VFD nomination It's been disputed, it's been listed on cleanup, but imho, it should be deleted. Not at all encyclopedic. —Stormie 05:39, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) Delete: Figure is insufficiently notable by half again. Geogre 13:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) The article would probably have been more apropriately titled "Ranting gryphon." Delete as vanity. Only 1180 hits in a google search, even fewer if you search for "ranting-gryphon.com"; most of the hits are from furry websites, with Portal of Evil making fun of him once or twice. He's non-notable outside of a small circle of people. --Ardonik.talk() 20:10, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) Keep, cleanup. The article as it exists is just (self-?)promotion, but he is vaguely notable in the furry community, and the Internet at large. He's sort of an oddity, a stand-up comedian who jokes about being a furry. Article should probably be moved to 2 the Ranting Gryphon, though, as I believe that's what he usually goes by (online and in performance). — Gwalla | Talk 21:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) Delete. Non-notable, self-promotion. Andre 20:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keep, cleanup. I started this page if you must no so it can't be self-promotion as i am not 2 gryphon. I think it needs alot of cleanup. The man is only not notable to you because you have never listen to his weekly show, never listened to his rants, not seen him on tour, not seen his artwork, not talked to him at the AnthroCon furry festival or bought/seen either of his 2 DVD's ... hes about as sucessfull as Lee Evans, Lee Hurst or Roy "Chubby" Brown in America as they are in England. Don't beleive me then why is his tour sold out for the next year. I do agree however that redirecting pages like Ranting Gryphon or 2 the Ranting Gryphon would be a useful addition to Wikipedia. I wish I had the time to put all the information i can in here but I don't. Hopefully people will understand that the man is famous and thus deserves a page. The google search on Ranting Gryphon had the following on it. "Results 1 - 20 of about 1,190 for "ranting gryphon". (0.62 seconds)" I doubt something that is not notable would have 1,190 pages on the internet about it. (don't know how to sign with IP, using a library computer anyway) (NOTE, this was made by an anonymous user: 212.219.189.60 Anonymous users cannot vote on VFD!) comment: You sign the same way with an IP as you do with a screen name: four tildes in a row (~~~~). Anon votes don't count, though; get yourself a screen name. — Gwalla | Talk 21:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keep. Anonymous article-starter seems quite convincing to me.--euyyn 18:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) end moved discussion

I'm going to list this on VFD AGAIN. WhisperToMe 03:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NEW VOTE

2ND VFD nomination

I am nominating this page for a 2nd time. Number one, this page's Alexa rating is poor (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.ranting-gryphon.com/) - Second, I feel as if this VFD nomination did not get enough attention from the community - I feel that this article is unencyclopedic. WhisperToMe 03:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: even after all that time, it's still an ad for a website that's not remotely notable; it's not going to get any better. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 03:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I vote delete too, just to make sure my thoughts on this are clear to others. WhisperToMe 03:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment (not voting again): I think a nominator should always abstain from voting in his or her own VfD nominations in order to remove even the remotest possibility of a conflict of interest. --Ardonik.talk()^* 14:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • The nominator's vote has always counted. No reason to make a special exception here. - Tεxτurε 18:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. My opinion hasn't changed. IMO, the previous nomination was not overlooked to any significant degree. — Gwalla | Talk 04:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: My opinion hasn't changed, except to become entrenched. I'm saddened to see that Clean Up didn't do anything much. Bless all who work there (and I used to), but they need to be bolder. At any rate, this is advertising. Notability wouldn't matter: it's an ad. The fact that it's not a notable site only aggravates the advertising. We also now know that the advertising isn't going to get cleaned up, even when the page is listed for correction. Geogre 04:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Not-notable. Even if it could be cleaned up really nicely, I doubt that it could be given enough content to make it truly encyclopedic. Perhaps when it matures for a couple of years, but not yet. ClockworkTroll 06:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no evidence he is notable outside of a very small group. Average Earthman 11:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 13:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Lowellian 19:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• I won't bother signing as I am a guest. The following quote is taken from further up.

--- I think it needs alot of cleanup. The man is only not notable to you because you have never listen to his weekly show, never listened to his rants, not seen him on tour, not seen his artwork, not talked to him at the AnthroCon furry festival or bought/seen either of his 2 DVD's ... hes about as sucessfull as Lee Evans, Lee Hurst or Roy "Chubby" Brown in America as they are in England. --- If this is the case I would say that any comedian with 2 DVD's releaced, His own radio show (which became a live radio show now at 8pm in America rather than a Web Show which is what he used to have), a sell out tour of the USA under his belt and a string of web pages about him must be of some intereset to people. He has been famous for a few years and has apeared on TV on 6 different occations according to his and a few fan websites on chat shows to discuss his career. I beleive this site needs extensive clean up but. At present it is little more than an add but how will the page ever get to be encyclopedic if you delete the begining of the page before people have the chance to add to it. People adding there knowledge to the pages of Wikipedia is the whole concept here and you making a mockery of it by deleting all pages that people could add to before they have the chance. The Lee Evans page is fairly short yet has not been listed in Votes For Deletion and shouldn't be I may add. This is merely a case of bored members trying to start up a debate. A forum is where these people need to go not an encyclopiedia. I use this site extensively and I have seen many pages up on the VFD list that really don't need to be there. Think before you add a site to VFD

• • Comment: Your implication that someone didn't think in this case is unsubstantiated IMO. I can't help wondering why you added all this material here, where it doesn't belong, and none of it to the article, where some of it possibly does belong and might have saved it from deletion. No vote from me either way. Andrewa 20:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If it hasn't been cleaned up after all this time, it isn't going to be. Delete. RickK 19:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• No personal attack was intended ...I'll rephrase what I had said. I have added more stuff to the page. It is now both cleaned-up and encyclopedic. I could do with more cleanup and maybe some rewording or re-organizing but the basic jist of the page is readable. I did not lie! The page has been cleaned up. I JUST DID IT!
  • Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style, then come back and tell me it's cleaned up. RickK`

    I didn't say it was finished ... I just said I had done some cleanup. Other people could add more information if they wish but at this present moment I beleive that this page is NOW adiquate. I'm sure all the people who voted Delete would change their mind now if they read this.

    • It's an absolute mess. RickK 00:38, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Non-encyclopedic advert. According to Google and Alexa, the subject of the article is very non-notable outside of a small group. However, I must vote Keep as this article survived VfD this very month. Re-nominating an article because few people voted is an open door to revive VfDs until an article is deleted. My personal opinion is that this article does not belong in the Wikipedia, but community consensus means nothing if we abide by it only when convenient. Far too soon to revive a VfD for this article. Keep. SWAdair | Talk 08:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Still not notable, and shouldn't have survived its last VfD nomination by my count. -Sean Curtin 04:03, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It is possible this fellow is notable enough for a short article here, but not this mess of an advert. If a good article is later written, and if someone puts it onto VfD (and perhaps no-one ever will) then a call can be made on notability alone. Even, if I knew this guy's work and loved it, I'd feel that no article at all was better than this embarrassingly bad advertisement. Jallan 16:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is what we get after an attempt to clean it up, I don't see much hope for this turning into an encyclopedia article. I expect to have at least heard of someone who is notable on the internet, and in the Google search above he merited hardly any more hits than I get. 1300 is nothing for someone whose claim to fame is internet presence. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:36, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The current page is non-encyclopedic, nonsense, advertising. Better to start from a blank page should the subject prove some notability. ---Rednblu 02:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)