Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daring Armstrong


 * 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, enough of this. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Daring Armstrong


Non-notable, article created by the author of the series, prod removed by a single purpose account. Google search only brings up wikipedia and youtube. yandman 14:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Watch out, socks about... yandman  19:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)




 * Delete for failure to assert any notability, and for lack of sources. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Delete per nomination - very poorly written, and so far has no real assertion of notability. Also, unnecessarily mysterious, saying "This mystery has yet to be revealed." –-  kungming·  2  (Talk)  18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't believe this page should be deleted. I am a fan of the show and I know for a pure FACT the page was not made by the creator of the show. You can't have looked very far on a google search then could you considering there are several pages dedicated to thsi paticular show. — Happy days1223 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: I am not the shows creator I just have my user name as Matthew barnard's name because I am a big fan of his work whether it be Daring Armstrong or The Matthew Barnard Show. I agree with someone else who posted in the Daring Armstrong discussion page saying there are lots more worse things on Wikipedia than shows that actually exist. — Matthewbarnard (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: I don't believe this to be deleted either. As another fan of the show it seems almost uneccessary. As for Diablo saying there are no references sources well all of the information is described within the show if you actually bothered to watch it. You guys should really do your own research before making accusations. — Thegreatllama (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: this isn't a vote, so there's little point in sock/meatpuppeting. yandman  21:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources are suppposed to be reliable and by a third party. Sure, a few details can be sourced to episodes, but the basics and the main part of the article needs to be veriable by written sources (books, magazines, websites, etc) - Mgm|(talk) 22:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:V all across the board. WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep rationale. Danny Lilithborne 03:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: So if the article supplies its references will it still be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegreatllama (talk • contribs).
 * Keep: I see no reason it should be deleted. As a fan I know alot of this information is true if not flawed in places but with a little work and some references it should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.176.254 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep: I believe this should be kept and I agree with the above user on this one. Sircoops123 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think this should be kept because everyone should know about it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leemon (talk • contribs).
 * Delete with a huge sledge hammer because no-one should know about it. My brain is smaller for having learned about it.  It gave me Ebola and AIDS. My computer is slowly self-formatting to remove the cache file as if it were a cancer.  PURGE THIS HERESY FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH BEFORE IT BRINGS ABOUT THE COMING APOCALYPSE!  Oh, and per nom. ArmAndLeg 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable vanity page. Stx 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: As producer of the featured cartoon, I am glad my work has been recognised, and I'm happy with the content of the page. My work has not been misrepresented or slandered, and most of the information is true. I'm glad my audience appreciate my work enough to give other people some info on my (rather disjointed) sense of humour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.188.241 (talk • contribs).
 * As stated above, this isn't a vote, so there's no point saying "keep" without adressing the issues raised, to whit: This is a non-notable comic. "I am glad my work has been recognised" sums up the problem here. I have no doubt your audience love your (excellent, by the way) comic, but we're an encyclopaedia. yandman  19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An issue has been raised by Yandman as well. The wikipedia article does not even mention the Daring Armstrong comic that inspired the internet animated show80.225.118.82 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious delete Hell, it probably should have been speedied. Two-episode YouTube "series".  Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, and just about anything you can throw at it.  Sockpuppet attempts are truely pathetic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. User:Matthewbarnard tried to remove this comment. When this is through, could we have a block of all these socks? yandman  09:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete because there are no references, the article gives out false information and the show has had only two episodes and minimal success. Don't get me wrong I am a fan of Daring Armstrong but I know for a fact that all of this information has been cooked up by some obsessed fan. Debaser23 09:28, 30 November 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.