Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLCat Bible Translation Project (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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

LOLCat Bible Translation Project
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The "LOLCat Bible Translation Project" is amazingly unsupported. No sources seem to be evident, beyond links which, chiefly, do not work. This should be deleted as per the Notability criterion. I'm aware that another nomination of this page for deletion exists, but the crap has gotten even worse, since then. Hard to imagine, but true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Felonius (talk • contribs)
 * Keep- Even counting the one source that isn't working, there's still two workable reliable sources in the article discussing the subject, plus this editorial from the Chicago Tribune. More than enough to allow a stub-type article. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Stubs are specifically disallowed by wiki policy. --Malleus Felonius (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By which policy? - file lake  shoe  03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, until an explanation for the above and about why the web sources "don't work" is provided which is actually consistent with WP policy. The subject has multiple independant sources, therefore it is notable. - file lake  shoe  03:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Paraphrasing the wikipedia:tutorial, wikipedia policy is to build up stubs- and I see few sources which would allow this to be any more than a stub, and a short one at that- but stubs are not relevant to wikipedia.The links are rotted. For one thing the chronicle link currently on the page is unaccessbile. If it is to stay, it must be formatted. Other links are duplicates of each other, such as links 1 and 3 on the references list. That makes like 1 reliable source, and might I remind you that that is toppled by ONEEVENT? Also, you're not allowed to vote twice, no matter who you are, on a proposed deletion.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article already has legitimate sources, and the editorial linked by Umbralcorax above could be added as a source too. I believe the nominator has misunderstood Stub, the guideline for stubs; being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. I also don't know what the nominator means by saying that the "chronicle" link is unaccessible; there's no mention of anything called the Chronicle in this article or its cites. Nor are there any inappropriately duplicated links in the references. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1. Yeah, there's a misunderstanding of stubs there; 2. the Internet Archive is your friend; 3. The person you were cautioning about voting twice, MF, only had voted once. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, a well written and sourced article about a notable project. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I will show the sources, and why 80% of them are inaccurate. The first so-called source is a blog, here . This is against wikipolicy. The second source is untraceable, see here . Not even the basic hyperlink works. The third so-called source is merely a definition of the LOLcat Bible Translation Project, written by some annonymous contributor. The fifth, well, that is also a blog. The sixth again returns nothing after many archival searches. In other words, only about two sources are reliable for this entry. The article should be merged with history of LOLcats, or something.Also, the fact of whether it is written well or not is not under dispute. Effort=/=Fact.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Malleus's "delete" recommendation as the nominator has already been taken into account and should not be double-counted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "blogs", please see WP:NEWSBLOG: "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I meant the Los Angeles Times link is inaccessible, not "the Chronicle".--Malleus Felonius (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Er...the LA Times article is accessable right there in the References section. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Very few of the cited sources are not some kind of blog. Suggest more than 2 sources that aren't some kind of blog, wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Felonius (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable sources already present in the article; this project also was the subject of coverage by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National network  and Popular Science, and discussed at the 2008 ROFLCon conference on internet pop culture at MIT.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is really the third nomination, and we already have had consensus that this is notable. As the years go on, "moar" and better sources attest to its notability. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm thinking that this AFD should be put through the AFD process once again, for further scrutiny. Thoughts?--Malleus Felonius (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Er...I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by that comment? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe he means that this AfD should be speedy closed and another AfD about the article should be opened. I can't understand why. Why not simply comment in this AfD? J I P  &#124; Talk 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to assume bad faith, but the only reason I can think of for that would be a dislike of the WP:SNOW, and hoping for a different result... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with Lolcat. I just cannot see how it is worth an article on its own. Esoglou (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- 5the link to the Los Angeles Times article is broken.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, (1) it's available on the L.A. Times website here under a different title; (2) it's available at archive.org as currently shown in the footnote; (3) there is no requirement that sources be available on line, so even if it were not currently available on-line that wouldn't affect its sufficiency as a source for the purposes of showing notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above, it's not broken. Perhaps your computer can't access archive.org? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the archive footnote doesn't work on my most advanced computer browser, with all settings on max. It didn't work two days in a row. If someone could connect this here, with the footnote connected to the archived copy of this, so the footnote actually worked, I'd bee much obliged.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (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.