Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Peacock


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe Peacock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blogger but the article lacks any substantial secondary sources. Bridgeplayer 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the website's notable (which I doubt) the author doesn't warrant his own entry. -  Irides centi  (talk to me!) 19:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Joe Peacock has been subject of a reliable, intellectually independent secondary source. See here. I see Peacock as being equally notable as Tucker Max, but just less controversial. The Wal-Mart Story which made Peacock notable has received well over 2,000,000 visitors, and Peacock is now published with a major publisher. This article was nominated for deletion in 2006 when he wasn't published, so I waited until now to write this article. I believe he is now notable. Please note that I am not affiliated with Peacock in any way. -GilbertoSilvaFan 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "creativeloafing.com" is a reliable source? For what it's worth, www.mentallyincontinent.com is number 458,794 in the alexa rankings and has only 92 links in whilst Tucker Max is in the top 4000 - just because the guy's own website claims he gets 2 million hits doesn't necessarily mean it's true. -  Irides centi  (talk to me!) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh okay dude, don't worry. I wasn't trying to persuade you (or anyone) to vote one way or the other, I was just writing that info so people can quickly/easily see his biggest achievements, and decide whether he's notable or not. I don't have anything to gain from the article being there one way or the other, nor does the author; so if people decide that Wikipedia is better off without the article, then cool. The last thing I want to do is argue about whether Peacock is lying or not, I have better things to do. -GilbertoSilvaFan 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I don't really see myself as much of anything besides a dude who likes to write and has had the great fortune of being read. There's the FarkTV thing, but that's not really worth pointing me out specifically. If I stay on Wiki, cool - it's an honor that GilbertoSilvaFan thought enough of me to actually write this thing. Admittedly, the bulk of the work I actually do isn't directly related to Mentally Incontinent, so I hope you won't take just that one site into condiseration to determine my "worth" or whatever. I will say that things are starting to pick up career-wise for me, and that I'm working hard to get a bit more out there and make a bigger name. But since I had to even say "Working hard to get a bit more out there," that very fact means I'm not out there yet. So, either way. I'm not going to have any hurt feelings, because really, last week I wasn't on Wikipedia... Just because I am this week, it won't make next week much different for me if I'm not on Wikipedia again :) --Joethepeacock 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and Iridescenti. - Aagtbdfoua 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. For what it's worth, the guy can write, and the Wal-Mart story did make me laugh, but I didn't believe for a second he actually pulled it off as advertised. Bottom line is no Google News Archive results for "joe peacock" or "mentally incontinent", and even the website's Alexa rank is past 800,000, so this fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 16:58, 2 April 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.