Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Feel Fine

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 was delete. - Bobet 09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Feel Fine

This was originally speedied as non-notable. Editor put in the barest effort to rescue it from speedy. It's still not much of an article about not much of a website, and I see no reason to believe that the situation will change. Kww 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to withdraw this one. I went too fast. Didn't see the teeny-tiny news link, and hadn't clicked on it. Indeed, the site has some notoriety. so the article stands a chance. Kww 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Let the AfD run its course. The "news link" is just a link to the site. Dbromage [Talk] 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So I must ask, why is the article being considered for Deletion? Granted it is not complete as of yet it is indeed slowly growing as I have more time to add onto it. It is upon a subject that has been covered by the media (With appropriate links on the site itself) as well as proven to be a very unique project by two men to document Human emotions in a very different and public way. I do believe that this is a website that deserves a Wikipedia page, as well as the recognition that such a page would be entirely deserved of such a unique project. I have long used Wikipedia in many ways and indeed have been a contributor both with and without my name for the better part of a year. Even if it is not complete, could it not be considered a stub? Should the Article not see any other contribution other then my own, then I shall slowly continue to expand upon it until such status can be lost as well. with my regards, St. Fenix 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I saved it in order to allow it to grow. This website although in your eyes not seeming to be much has grown to some notoriety and has been recognised by the media as well as many surfers upon the internet as a unique and interesting Website. Possibly even being considered the start of an Internet Craze between but not unlike All your base are belong to us and Myspace. I do believe that the method by which it brings forth its content is unique enough as well as popular enough to be considered as an Article of Wikipedia.

St. Fenix 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very weak WP:N assertion but in its current form fails WP:V and WP:RS. The first few pages of Ghits are blogs. Dbromage [Talk] 01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at present, I am unique and interesting, but I don't get an article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I shall be able to provide as many instances as possible that I can find of the coverage of We Feel Fine over the Internet as well as the Media. But you must remember however that several of the newslinks on We Feel Fine point towards Radio stations as well as media that are not easily retrievable online. It is understandable that these sources are left out. Instead and in its place I shall provide such coverage from all reachable sources online. I should also state that it is possible to Search these news sites for Instances Of We Feel Fine since most of these News Sources have a Search Feature. Because the link is not direct doesn't mean that it isn't pointing us in the right direction.

Here are several to browse for yourself, if you believe that more doesn't exist try various other Search engines as well as other methods to see for yourself if this site doesn't exist as something that people are looking at online.

St. Fenix 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and above. Article content fails WP:N. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per third party coverage in the LA times and the Guardian (both pay archived articles, but the former is fully about the site). Eliz81^(talk)^(contribs) 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In that case add reliable third party citations to back up each claim made in the article. The citation must be able to back up the claim being made. Dbromage [Talk] 23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keeping the article because the topic is notable and has received sufficent coverage is one thing. The article still needs a massive rewrite and cleanup to get to NPOV. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also, uses way too many peackock words! Is definitely written like spam. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above.Harlowraman 23:05, 16 August 2007 (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.