Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Chicks in Party Hats (2nd 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.  

The result was Delete. While it seems plausible that among internet memes of a few years ago this was of possible note, it's clear that the article in current form fails WP:V because of its extraordinarily vague citations. Failing this policy makes the inability to address WP:N secondary. No prejudice against recreation & reevaluation if said references can be clarified & verified. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fat Chicks in Party Hats
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No references and no real claims to notability. Has stuck around on Wikipedia for years but ultimately has become a non-notable internet meme. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. What do you mean, "no references"?  The article lists plenty of print reviews (although the citations are incomplete).  I recall reading reviews in other print publications as well.  Seems to pass WP:N.  —Psychonaut 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete with long-winded reason: Assuming good faith this passes notability for coverage in multiple secondary sources...or at least so it says. 5 different references are listed and not one of them is an appropriate citation.  If Premium Magazine conducted an interview, great.  What issue?  What pages of that issue?  If there is a web version of the magazine, where is the link?  This presumably passes WP:NN and then seems to be intent on throwing that away by boldly failing that whole "verifiable" part of WP:V.  Beyond this, the article is written like a fansite, and it's horribly awash in weasel words (particularly here) presumably to once again avoid that pesky task of actually looking up citations.  I mean really: "Some believe he is actually Seanbaby himself...".  Who thinks that?  The author?  The author's friend who once sent him an e-mail with a link to the site?  I'm willing to nudge my opinion to "weak keep" if citations are added, but the OR and POV seriously need to be cleaned up as well.-Markeer 00:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Searched google news archive and came up with 3 hits, and I would categorize all 3 as trivial, adding no notability to the site.  Corpx 06:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Utterly unnotable, and reads likea joke at Wiki's expense. Delete unles indepently verified, and rewriten to come up to standard. SockpuppetSamuelson 10:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's not a joke on wikipedia's expense, it's a real site that's been around for years. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted though.  WLU 12:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable although the website does exist. Bigdaddy1981 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the nomination; internet meme with no importance or sources. &spades;P M C&spades; 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known humour site, internet meme. Was very popular during its peak. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:10, 10 July 2007 (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.