Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Cranky (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 per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Cranky (2nd nomination)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

(first nomination) Delete, due to WP:WEB&mdash;not to mention a very unencyclopedic vanity page. Yes, this entity is mentioned on the internet. Let's take a look:
 * 1) Guardian article - it's not the subject of the article
 * 2) An interview - this can't qualify as the first for WP:WEB, because there is no indication of the identify of "NetSlaves", and whether this interviewer is reliable or not, or whether he or she is part of the Mr. Cranky community (hence being self-promotional). I would not say that "content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators", because the content isn't being distributed, nor was it ever systematically distributed: this is a one-time occurrence of an interview. In addition, there's a Site 404 error, hence making this interview unverifiable.
 * 3) Seattle Times - this is about the co-founder of Mr. Cranky, who was minimally involved in making it. The subject of this article is not Mr. Cranky.
 * 4) Highbeam article - requires registration, and what I can see appears to be more of a site description than an assertion of notability. I am also dubious about the reliability of this source.
 * Sources 1 and 3 fail WP:WEB. Sources 2 and 4 are unverifiable, since the content cannot be accessed. Since I also doubt their reliability (if they could be accessed), the sources regarding this article are not multiple enough to establish notability. The Chicago Tribune apparently featured this website, although I cannot find this, making it unverifiable. Delete -- Grace notes T &#167; 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)  Grace notes T  &#167; 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - no evidence of reliable sources. Walton monarchist89 19:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Within ten minutes, I found two sources that pass WP:WEB: The Hoya (2/7/03) and Oregon Daily Emerald (5/25/00). Plus, extra notability should be confered when the site's writer moonlights as an entertainment writer for MSNBC. Plus, the fact that Cal's film school sees it fit to include Cranky on its list of movie review databases carries some weight. Caknuck 20:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, provided references added As per Caknuck above, there do appear to be verifiable references for Mr. Cranky. Keep, assuming the references are actually added to the article in the appropriate manner. Dugwiki 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, website has declined in popularity but was well-covered during its tenure. Some sources are now behind paywalls, others from that time have disappeared offline entirely. Mr. Cranky is profiled in 505 Weirdest Online Stores (2005) .  The Internet Bible (2000) calls it "an excellent film guide". and The Everything Internet Book (1998) .  Once again I find people using AFD as a quick solution to unreferenced. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, FYI, NetSlaves was an independent publication whose content was redistributed on WIRED (I'm surprised we don't have an article). And I really would like to hear your reasoning as to how the Rocky Mountain News fails WP:RS. HighBeam -- if that's your worry -- is a large corporation that handles paid archives for many major publications. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, WP:V makes no provision for paywalls or paper publications being unverifiable. Many of these may be accessed by walking to one's library. Please do not expand policies to cover your personal interpretation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, I don't see where I've implied that. I'm disappointed that my actions have indicated, to you, that I thought that book sources were unverifiable. The sources provided by you and Caknuck are helpful (although that the author is notable doesn't mean that the content is). The article, in my opinion, was very unencyclopedic, although notability concerns distracted me a bit more. While you have more or less removed from my mind any qualms about the latter, the former (as well as verifiability concerns), which does not seem to merit deletion, is still... concerning. Grace notes T  &#167; 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are good. Ab e g92 contribs Boomer Sooners!  20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup. Notable enough: the Chicago Tribune connection and the published book push him well over the bar.  Definitely needs cleanup badly though.  I recommend getting rid of the "Crankyland" section entirely. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung. Seventypercent 00:05, 26 January 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.