Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geddon Gear


 * 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. After discounting the WP:SPAs, the only remaining argument to keep is "Will probably become more notable" which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Notability first, Wikipedia article second. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Geddon Gear

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined speedy. Appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unclear what suggestion of notability on the article makes it ineligible for speedy. No assertion of notability in the article. Doing work for the editor through google reveals no additional notability. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – Seems to fail WP:WEB as stated above as well as being an advertisement(?). —Subverted (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - This article makes reference to retailer in the same fashion as other sites referenced here like ThinkGeek (which by the way is written like an advertisement rather than a factual narrative) or Woot.  I would agree with your assertions about notability if this type of site was a dime a dozen, but it is not.  If your criteria for inclusion into wiki is the amont of money a site spends on advertising with Google, thus increasing the chances of being linked, then I would question the integretiy of your vetting process. Roypereira (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)'
 * If the site is not 'a dime a dozen' then please provide refs from WP:secondary sources to show it. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * — Roypereira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP - I agree with the previous statement to keep the site listed for reference under Wikipedia. The criteria for notability seems a bit ambiguous at this point.   Regardless of this single criteria, the site appears to be unique in its regard for a humorous angle to the 2012 craze, which is a quickly growing subject all over the internet, including a large article referenced by Wikipedia itself - which to me makes this sort of information all the more relevant.  Furthermore, as an example of the implementation of disparet services ranging from Microsoft Offlice Live to CafePress makes the implementation itself quite notable.   Tweak2020 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * — Tweak2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Weak keep Will probably become more notable. I'm spreading the word about them now. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; even if they will become notable, what indication is there that they are currently? It's yet another website whose owners are trying to use Wikipedia to bolster popularity. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; I believe precedent for this type of entry already exists, but not as the previous author suggests in reference to established franchises like thinkgeek and woot. There are a number of factual articles already in wikipedia referencing niche retailers that have similar noteability.  Take for instance Jjbuckley.com, Bidtopia, Alibris, Backcountry.com, Gafy.com, AtomicPark.com, Fredflare.com, Gottaplay.  It does lead to a very interesting questions about what the exclusion criteria is.KurtVan (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * — KurtVan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment There's a lot of very serious discussion here. Hands up - who hasn't actually read the website of Geddon Gear? If you haven't, I'd suggest doing so. Not if you're accessing in a public library, though. (No, it's not THAT sort of site...) Peridon (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:WEB. WP policies such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL contradict the arguments of KurtVan, Tweak2020 and Roypereira. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I will not discount the points made by those who wish to the remove the site. But I also do not think that the examples cited as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and CRYSTAL are of themselves cause for omition.   The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS article makes it clear that such decisions are ultimately subjective for both sides of the discussion.  To wit: "In an article's deletion debate, an editor unfamiliar with guidelines may vote to keep an article solely because articles similar to it exist. Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article. In such a case, both arguments should likely be discounted by the closing administrator.".  Furthermore, the article specifies the notion of "Inherent Notability" - which MAY be stretching it a bit, but in some cursory research on the internet I see NO EXAMPLES of an apocolyptic site using parody for the 2012 End of the world, while I found a din of sites desperately trying convince people such end of the world is emminent.   Doesn't being the first to provide a unique viewpoint on a subject merit some sort of notability....or nobility :).  

As for CRYSTAL BALL, I don't see anywhere in the Geddon Gear article where it is stating that the 2012 "event" is indeed coming.....that information is left justifiably to the 2012 section in wikipedia itself. And while a statement suggesting FUTURE notability is indeed weak, I would argue again that in this case there is cause to at least seek further opinion.

Finally, while I do agree the entry may indeed be its owners attempting to bloviate about their site, that is generally just conjecture, and there is no way to prove or disprove they are the owners or major contributors. So far I have only seen basic statements of fact, and honest attempts at updating the article to be more in line with the quality and expectations of Wikipedia.

Enjoying the debate!Tweak2020 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bloviate?? Peridon (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I looked up Bloviate it seems to be a legit word :) I also discovered thje site is listed under various categories in wiki web directory http://www.wikidweb.com/wiki/Geddongear.com . This site is also mentioned in this article discussing the upcomming Sony Pictures movie 2012 - http://www.thefreesnowball.com/are-you-prepared-for-2012/ as well as this blog http://oxylife.blogspot.com/2009/02/roland-emmerichs-2012-viral-institute.html 24.248.74.254 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (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.


 * Wow - So this must be what started the rivalry. I have seen a bunch of references on their site putting down wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.74.254 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree - I don't see anything on the site or here that suggests there was some sort of rivalry.   I did find one link on their site referring to Wikipedia here http://geddongear.com/wackapedia.aspx, but it hardly strikes me as overt critisism.  If we cannot laugh at ourselves, then we cannot truly laugh.   Inside.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.23.0.93 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)