Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy Tumbleweed Awards


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 01:48Z 

Comedy Tumbleweed Awards

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable website awards. ArtVandelay13 00:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No to deletion - the website is very well known in UK comedy circles and the awards, while sometimes too ranting for my tastes, offer an important counterpoint to both Chortle and the 'real' UK comedy awards. as has been mentioned, they *have* received some press attention, and the precedent has been set by other comedy websites having their awards included. i feel it's always going to be a contentious point on wikipedia because most UK comedy entries are seemingly 99% maintained by big fans of the show/comedian in question (i myself have had to battle long and hard to prevent, for example, the inclusion of an award on the Mighty Boosh page that was invented by their own management, or a marcus brigstocke 'joke' that he stole from someone else - his denial was being quoted as fact on wiki!)


 * Not only is it notable (as it has had some UK press attention) but it's at least as notable as websites such as Chortle whose comedy awards have been included in the entries on comedians such as Josie Long.


 * I'd fully support the deletion of this entry so long as Chortle's entry and all mentions of their comedy awards also get deleted.--Mr. Analytical 00:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as this article lacks any independent sources substantiating any claims to notability. Nick Graves 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No to deletion - It is a notable website that has had press attention - bingo99 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No to deletion - The Chortle Website lacks endorsements. In fact, there isn't even an entry for the Chortle awards, but they're still included on different entries.  The Tumblies have received mainstream media attention, as has its website of origin (including featuring on a recent TV programme).--Mr. Analytical 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No to deletion - give it a chance to work on the page. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 01:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest that the above users read the essay WP:INN- just because something has an article does not mean that something else deserves one. -- Kicking222 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also suggest that "working on the article", while a noble suggestion, would not improve absence of notability and verifiability if they don't exist to begin with--Dmz5 05:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on what you mean on this? They quite definitely 'exist', and have their own website.
 * Furthermore, it's highly unusual three people can come up with the same synonym to "keep", consecutively... MER-C 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let alone the same extremely unusual synonym. -- Charlene 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above accusation of all of the defences being mounted by the same person is baseless, childish and well below the usual standard of debate that Wikipedia is noted for. Shame on you.
 * Comment: So you have nothing to hide if someone decides to check then? -- Kinu t /c  07:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the above is ribbing, but a cursory look at their user pages does not suggest anything underhanded.--Dmz5 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation, it's an observation. I implied it's a possibility, nothing more. MER-C 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's highly unlikely thay they are the same person, more likely simply not knwing that Keep is the standard term and copying the person above. ArtVandelay13 15:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Almost nothing on Google, and absolutely nothing that would qualify as non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. -- Kicking222 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Big  top  01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article barely asserts notability, which isn't surprising because there is none. -- Charlene 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources found that indicate notability. -- Kinu t /c  07:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No to Deletion: I think this page is notable, and we should keep it. After all, we have pages on the Razzies which is a similar award for films. ISD 08:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ...And the Razzies are reported on in almost every major media source almost every year. There would be no problem finding reliable sources for the Razzies. -- Kicking222 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial and not notable. DaveApter 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. "No to deletion" is a new one on me.  Dei zio  talk 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In fairness the script of this years "awards" on the website is quality, very funny. Very Brit-centric so don't bother if you don't watch a lot of Channel 4. Still nn tho.  Dei zio  talk 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes to deletion per above. AgentPeppermint 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - load of old tosh. --IanIanSymes 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Computer says noooo.... Maddy626 09:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.