Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoHomers.net (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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

NoHomers.net
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass the General Notability Guidelines. No significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. Orangeroof (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Gets a few mentions in The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History and this CNN article, but they only state that it's the most popular Simpsons fansite.  The article itself relies almost exclusively on primary sources.  I don't know.  I can see how a keep argument could be made, but I'd prefer to see a source unambiguously writing about the site itself and its history rather than simply quoting an administrator for a soundbite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that since it's been acknowledged substantially in several Simpsons episode commentaries that it should probably be kept.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Woah, I don't even remember writing this. In any case the vote makes no sense, so I've struck it and will deliver a better vote later.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks any in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. A mention on a commercial DVD by the Matt Groening does not impart notability. "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance,". Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - MrX 16:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to The No Homers Club, as that is the name of the website, not its url.
 * Some random sources that I have collected together (which may or may not justify the article's existence on their own) include:
 * The reaction from fans on Nohomers.net, the leading Simpsons fan site(read by many Simpsons staffers), has been extreme disappointment.,
 * "Some more offbeat groups include the Monty Python Society and the No-Homers Club, "our resident Simpsons group."",
 * ,
 * ,
 * They are treated as an authority - a credible source - on this topic,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * Exclusive interviews with Simpsons folk,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * plus I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff in the Simpsons episode commentary on the DVDs - most of the episode articles would not have a chance in hell of becoming GA/FA if it werent for those DVD's. It's also worth pointing out that even if a source is taken from the nohomers.et website, they have done official interviews with various members of The Simpsons staff, and so those sources would then become third party.--Coin945 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked through each source. Aside from some not even being reliable (there's a Prezi link in there) most don't look very substantial. I don't think lots of fleeting mentions is enough to pass WP:GNG. Also, an interview conducted on NoHomers is not a third party source.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, if a third party is interviewed on NoHomers.net, and talks about NoHomers.net during the interview, then that counts as a third party. By the way JOOI I never claimed to have solved the puzzle of the missing notability with those sources above. I just did a quick Google prod-and-poke to find everything that seems to be available on the subject. Online that is. And using my chosen search terms that is.--Coin945 (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But yeah, I think #31 is gonna be our best bet.--Coin945 (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't believe this passes WP:GNG. Lots of fleeting mentions out there, but that's not enough.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Promo, not GNG p  b  p  20:49, 23 November 2013 (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.