Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meathead (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, but I'll make a dab page at this title (Michael Stivic, Meathead (band), etc.).--SB | T 08:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Meathead
Was proposed for deletion by User:64.231.246.231 (talk • contribs), but moved straight to AFD since it wouldn't have survived there for long thanks to the flood of sockpuppets from last time. Original reason was: "Meathead is not known outside the Nine Inch Nails online fan community. The only reason this page survived deletion last time is that his friends at the Nine Inch Nails fan forum http://www.echoingthesound.org/ posted here to vouch for his continued relevance. Outside that limited sphere of online NIN fans, Meathead is unknown and irrelevant." I second that nomination citing Notability (people) issues and lack of references to 3rd party Reliable sources. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete is still my vote from last time, for the reasons above. But I give it 3 more hours before the meatpuppets attack again. Get ready with your and  tags. &mdash;  RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Michael Stivic. Forgot about that this time... &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) User:Mets501 (talk • contribs) protected Articles for deletion/Meathead (2nd nomination) (due to anon vandalism in first AFD [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])


 * Delete - it has sources - such as forum posts, and the guy's own website! WilyD 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, NIИ cruft. I've been reading the Meathead Perspective for almost seven years, and it's pretty funny if you're a fan, but as a person he isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia.  -/- Warren 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, article has undergone significant improvement. Non Notable fancruft is deleted because it attracts poorly written articles, and the article is certainly of a higher quality than a lot of articles on more "important" issues. The article has managed to attract serious editors (who are keeping the vandals well under control). We also aren't deleting the articles on other internet personalities just because most of the talk relating to them is (surprisingly) on the internet: Maddox (writer), Tucker Max, etc. Sure, they're more popular, but notability is not the same thing as popularity. GeorgeBills 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: But both Maddox and Tucker Max have written New York Times bestsellers. What has Meatpuppet done that is notable and verifiable outside of the Nine Inch Nails fan community? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Urg, I didn't even know that (the published book thing). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that internet sources aren't automatically non-factual, and given that many of the articles here currently only contain internet sources, only using internet sources shouldn't be an automatic deletion criteria. Reliable sources also notes that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and I think the inverse should be true: ordinary claims don't need peer reviewed papers for proof. There's nothing in the Meathead article that isn't believed by that articles editors, with reasonable although not indisputable evidence, to be true. There was an April Fools joke in the article previously, but it was removed and I think that shows that the articles editors are happy to remove non-factual material. Also, the main point of the article is that someone calling themself Meathead is writing a popular series of essays (etc). The actual site itself should be good enough for that reference surely?  I guess my arguments are:
 * The article is referenced above the standard of the majority of the articles here, and while those references are internet references, they are reliable for the fairly ordinary claims that they're covering.
 * The number of fanboys / fangirls spamming the last AfD is regrettable, but the admin who reviewed that AfD discounted their opinion anyway, and popularity is hardly grounds for deletion. The nominations argument that the "only reason this page survived deletion last time is that his friends [...] posted here to vouch for his continued relevance" is thus irrelevant.
 * The vandalism on the page is also regrettable, but it's being dealt with (the majority of it coming from one persistent IP vandal, on a one week ban last I saw), and frequent vandalism is also not a reason for deletion (or we'd be deleting Falun Dafa, President Bush, Israel, etc).
 * Some of the arguments for deletion of NN articles clearly don't apply here: that they don't attract editors, that they clutter cats, that the article tends to be overly biased (the article makes no PoV judgements as far as I can see, but I'll go over it again to try and make sure).
 * Wiki isn't paper, and so as far as I'm concerned, non-verifiability is the main argument for deleting NN pages. The article doesn't reference any scientific journals, but for some subjects, subjects which a reasonably large minority group of people are going to find interesting and informative, that isn't going to happen. GeorgeBills 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Third party sources include the NIN official website and the official fan club website, and as traffic statistics will tell you, visitors to his column are NOT limited to the (admittedly over-enthusiastic) denizens of echoingthesound.org. BotleySmith 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Botley, remember that those are not concidered reliable sources per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Not really notable enough M  a  rtinp23  15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This comes from a NIN fan. I enjoy meathead's work, but he is not notable enough outside of NIN fandom to get a wikipedia entry. Do we really want every kid who satirizes their favorite band and their fans to get a wikipedia entry? Chilla 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as subject falls well short of WP:BIO criteria. Sources don't meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: from WP:BIO, cited above: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." GeorgeBills 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Nor does it mean they should automatically be included. They are guidelines yes, but the kicker is this article fails WP:V], [[WP:OR, and possibly WP:NPOV. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, it doesn't mean it automatically needs to be deleted... but there are no verifiable, reliable sources provided (as Bschott mentioned) and nobody asserting this should be kept has advanced a compelling, logical reason why the guidelines should be ignored in this case.--Isotope23 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: My arguments for the page being referenced well enough for what it covers are above, and I guess the admin that reads this will decide whether they make sense or not... Bschott only said that the article "possibly" fails WP:NPOV, but I would like to know why you think this? I've just changed the word "humorous" to "comedy" (because humorous implies that everyone finds his work funny, and comedy merely implies that the intent of his column is to be funny), but that was a pretty minor change. Is your NPoV complaint something fixable? GeorgeBills 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment personally I disagree with your argument about sources above; we don't need peer reviewed scientific articles, but we do need verifiable, reliable, 3rd party information independent of the subject... and that is missing here. I don't see a good reason advanced to ignore WP:BIO in this case.  You are right though, an admin will decide which way they want to go with this; it is in their hands now.--Isotope23 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as Meathead is not just a person but a character, and Wikipedia is one large circlejerk anyways. --Unperfekt 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Alright, what do we have here. Lets look at the reasons shall we: "Meathead is not known outside the Nine Inch Nails online fan community. The only reason this page survived deletion last time is that his friends at the Nine Inch Nails fan forum http://www.echoingthesound.org/ posted here to vouch for his continued relevance. Outside that limited sphere of online NIN fans, Meathead is unknown and irrelevant." Alright, here are the facts. Except for Trent Reznor, EVERY other MEMBER of NIN is UNKNOWN and IRRELEVANT outside that limited sphere. Please tell me mr. reporter, do you know ANYONE who is a part of NIN except for Trent Reznor? Oh please, go on. Do you wiki search and reply. Meathead is not only a fan, but a mutual friend of Trent Reznor. No, i dont mean to say that they are dating or some sort, but that Meathead is been an important part of NIN. If you were a fan, you would know that. The first "excuse" you guys had was that there are no links when you search for "Meathead Perspective" in google. We'll... let me show you: http://www.google.ca/search?q=Meathead+Perspective Oh look, what do we have here? More than 1000 pages including www.nin.com itself! Second of all, Trent himself has bookmarked Meathead's page in www.nin.com under the resources section. http://www.nin.com/resources/index.html Hell, i even have a feeling that if you guys keep putting up this article for deletion, Trent himself will comment on his blog and will say "Stop deleting this page!" cause no matter how much fun meathead makes of NIN, it really brings fans closer. NIN has one of the most loyal fans out there, and pages like Meathead's Perspective and theninhotline are bringing fans more closer. It would be a shame to see articles deleted for lame excuses. You know what, why don't you delete the important articles instead of this. Here. Let me help you get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucks.com or better, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ouzounian Look at this MotherFragger... he is just another INTERNET person.. why does he has a freaking Wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Max Woah cool... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Carapetis WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY!!! WHY DOES HE HAS A DAMN WIKI!!!! HE DOESNT EVEN HAS AN ALBUM!! MEATHEAD HAS TWO!! Shagg187 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Shawn rv signature per
 * Reply: The Salon on Maddox, The Chicago Sun-Times on Tucker, and MTV on Carapetis. They all have articles on Wikipedia because there are 3rd party reliable sources that establish their notability. We can compare Meathead against Notability (music) if you want as well, but so far I've haven't read anything that proves he passes that either. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your civility really makes us want to count your vote more. And if you have so much against all the other articles, feel free to AfD any of them. It's the same process that was undertaken for this article. Feel free to add the two albums you refer to into the main article, it would be best to reference them to something like AllMusic or Amazon or whatever too. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding Google links, I brought up in the previous conversation that there are zero incoming links on Google, still. Plenty for the server/forum that serves it up. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The above comment was originally made by User:Shagg187, who edited his sig later on to User:Shawn, who has never edited this page as far as I can see: diff. Shagg187 has been cautioned twice already (in February) for vandalising AfD pages... GeorgeBills 05:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Isotope23 and Brian. Lazybum 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, several parsecs away from notability. BoojiBoy 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no verifiable sources. Recury 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for verifiability and notability. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for notability. Possibly redirect to Michael Stivic :) Andrew Levine 23:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Unperfekt, and then redirect to Michael Stivic per Andrew Levine. bikeable (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep--Tess Tickle 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shawn und BotleySmith Raid0422 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What here is verified by reliable sources? How is he notable? Captainktainer * Talk 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete On wikipedia, verifiability by reliable sources is not optional. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a good amount of useful and notable content on the page, the NIN community deserves to have at least this page on wikipedia. --NeoVampTrunks 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my argument last time, fact or not, it must be verifiable from reliable sources, and I think this article fails that.   Tabanger   21:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Yeah, like the Meat, but I don't really feel that strongly either way to be honest. Why not just keep it for those who want it? Dwdmang 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Because he's not notable, there aren't any reliable sources for the information in the article, and it doesn't look like either of those problems will be rectified. Bear in mind that WP:V is completely non-negotiable. Captainktainer * Talk 20:10, 20 August 2006 (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.