Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamumu Software


 * 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 --Steve (Stephen)talk 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hamumu Software

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable company, doesn't cite its sources. Not as famous as Dramatica. --Clavern 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep (changed from Keep) for now. This article is a favorite target of vandal Heekz who is still vandalizing this article via sockpuppets. JuJube 07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure why its frequent vandalism is a reason not to delete it? I don't know whether it should or not, but I'm not sure why vandalism would show notability. --- Mithent 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not saying it's notable, I just think the vandalism needs to be sorted through first. I don't know how much of this article is true.  But I'm changing my vote to "Weak Keep" since even now I'm unsure of its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuJube (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I'm the Mike Hommel in question on the page. With the exception of the existence of a "Dark Lord Farley Amulet" in LL2, the article is factual (if pretty silly and unprofessional).  I confess to a bit of bias in this matter, but here is why Hamumu is notable: "Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it." (from the guide to deletion) - okay, here are where independent people have written about me (no books, sadly, but come on!): Dr. Lunatic Supreme With Wiki - a site by a fan, Player's Guide To Supreme - another fan, The Loonyversity - some more fans, Pants Of Power (now defunct) another fan, Joystiq.com interviewed here, GameTunnel.com interviewed here, and of course my games have been reviewed all over the place for a decade.  Lastly, I have two more references, that aren't quite so external, but do fit the definition: SPISPOPD and Hamumu Software - both written by people wholly unaffiliated with me (furthermore, the SpisFAQ referenced on the SPISPOPD page is another example of this).  Google Hamumu Software for dozens more such references.  As for WP:SALT, that's just pouring salt in the wound to permaban an article because someone likes to vandalize it.  Awful lot of power to the vandal, isn't it?  So come on, that's pretty dadgum notable.  Hamumu Software articles have existed here before, and probably will again (well, in the absence of a salting of the earth) - the fans keep making them when they get deleted, and believe me, I have NO connection to that.  They just want to talk about it.  That sounds like notable to me.  Why leave up a page about a JOKE I did while deleting the reference to the company that did it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.173.102.172 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as not notable and unsourced. Links and references are not reliable sources as they come from the company's own site. Being a vandal target is criteria for WP:SALT, but not keeping. DarkAudit 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, simply because I don't see any real indication or evidence that this is notable --Miskwito 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it needs cleanup, clean it. Don't delete it, that's not helping. And what the heck does it being attacked by vandals or not being as famous as Dramatica have to do with anything?! PK 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The content is frequently altered to include stupid shit that vandals like to add, and nobody reverts it. I only caught one once, a long time ago. JuJube 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The article does not have independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 07:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, just salt it, it has been up for deletion over a week now and consensus seems to lean toward delete. Lulzdrama 16:23, 11 May 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.