Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (3rd nomination)

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.

P-P-P-Powerbook

The result was speedy keep due to bad faith nom, WP:SNOW, and an AfD determining keep a mere month ago. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC) closed as unnecessary duplication of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (4th nomination), which is the actual debate here. All relevant comments are moved there. Punkmorten 06:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing third nomination of this article. No opinion. Previous nominations:

Neutral - FrancisTyers · 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of SA and I love the story, but without any kind of independant, reliable sources that it is even real, let alone notable, it'll have to go.--Drat (Talk) 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability and I don't see any possibility of encyclopedic notability. It's not even a meme. Its just a "I thought of a funny thing to do today" anecdote. Falls under WP:NFT in my opinion. Take it to Encyclopedia Dramatic or Uncyclopedia etc. Those are the places for this kind of thing. Not Wikipedia. Bwithh 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many times is this going up for AfD today? Anyway, looks like a good candidate for ED if it had more lulz. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless secondary sources added -- The first nom had a bunch of people who said they saw it on the news, but none of that news coverage has been cited in this article. If it can be found and cited, we should keep, but without it we have no verifiability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did anyone even look at the article's sources? Two newspapers: The Register and The Independent. Anomo 20:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs better mention of it. One article in the reg isn't enough, but if it can cite several articles specifically about it, then we've got something. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean? The article has two newspaper sources? I have seen articles kept just for having one sources in a newspaper. Anomo 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Register story is trivial - it's categorized under the "Wild Wild Web" section, which is The Register's section for tabloid-style internet news in brief stories with a large dose of lurid sleaze stories. From the current edition, amongst more mainstream brief news stories, there are reports on a sandwich half-eaten by Britney Spears being sold on Ebay; a "Dead Steve Irwin" being sold on Ebay, and various titallating reports with some sex angle.
2) The Independent story does not refer to the P-P-P-Powerbook incident at all.
3) Media coverage, even widespread coverage in leading news channels, does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... How come it passed its 2nd AFD with lots of keeps and its third are tons of deletes? What changed? Anomo 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I thought this was cool and I hate to say it, it really isn't that notable per the commentary here. I'm not sure El Reg can hold it. Weak Delete. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. wikipediatrix 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is actually the fourth nomination for this article. --Roninbk _{t c #} 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook Result: No Consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (second nomination) Result: Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (third nomination) Result: Keep (Redirected from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (2nd nomination))

Delete; subject could be better covered at scam baiting. --keepsleeping slack off! 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.