Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollonfriday


 * 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 no consensus. – Will (message me!) 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rollonfriday


Procedural nomination; someone tried to db-bio this, but it's a website and so doesn't fit. No vote. --ais523 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Strong Keep - These poor people have worked on this article! Trunk 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I did try that, but you are correct. The article reads like a "behind the scenes" of the forums right now, and does not give any reason as to why it is notable. I can correct myself when I appear to be wrong and I wish to change my vote to Keep. Doing research the site indeed does appear to be notable, however the childish attacks and unencyclopedic information needs to be removed. Wildthing61476 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to be just another website. Alexa ranking 390,000. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as part of it is definitely an attack on one of the forum's admins. This otherwise reads as an advertisement for the fourms. Wikipedia is neither a web directory nor free ad space. --DarkAudit 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speediest Delete This wikipedia entry should be deleted as it's not nearly as funny as it used to be. Lollers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Shaftington (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete It clearly is not "just another website" but one with a cultural reach far beyond it's intended readership. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannibal s (talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * put the electrodes on its danglage and send the poor lil minge to heaven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flying Wang (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * maybe it should be saved but first describe looks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Shaftington (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote, then deleted by caster. --ais523 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The editors of the above 4 votes have only edited the article and this AfD. --ais523 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete The entry itself is worthy of inclusion due to its growing significance and influence. It is widely referenced within the legal press, and represents a refreshing and rapidly developing new facade to the legal scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.25.137 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yet the article does not refer to any reference other than a Times website article. If these references could be cited, the article would be more likely to stay. LinaMishima 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The page has now been blanked by the author. Wildthing61476 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete - this website is a unique insight into the closed comminity of lawyers. It provides topical and interesting information on current thinking in law and the culture of law offices in the uk  _ Longtermlurker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.133.69.162 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 July 2006  (UTC)
 * Don't delete - 'tis a cultural phenomenon, albeit amongst Solicitors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynameismike (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved this vote from the talk page. --ais523 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it a vote or not a vote?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdelphinus (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a discussion, in that keep/deletes aren't added up to determine whether it gets deleted. Comments with keep or delete bolded in them are often, slightly incorrectly, referred to as votes as a form of shorthand. --ais523 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete entirely non-notable website - no media coverage, few users, et al. WilyD 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed my accidental duplicate vote. - Thanks, Ais523 WilyD 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate presumably added by mistake in the midst of many edit conflicts. --ais523 15:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article would be significantly improved by a rewrite (perhaps removing a lot of the chafe), and most certainly needs better citing of referals by primary sources. The website certainly is not a vanity one, which also leans in it's favour. I say keep for now, and if in a few weeks no references have been cited, then put up for deletion again. LinaMishima 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting for the record that Ais523 made me aware of this entry. LinaMishima 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete Much like Dilbert, RollOnFriday began as a humorous parody of a phenomenon and has since become part of the phenomenon itself. It is one of the few sources of an unbiased view of a profession often presented as staid and old-fashioned and surely is deserving of a Wikipedia page.  Partnerfrance 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep How can someone say there is no media coverage when media coveraged is linked to within the account of the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It mentions in the article that it HAS been mentioned in the press on a number of occasions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdelphinus (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Either wiki is a knoweldge database or it isn't. Rollonfriday is a significant element of lawyer culture and should be acknowleged as such.--81.144.180.200 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Clyde
 * This IP has edits from before this page was created and appears to be static. --ais523 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not. It is an encyclopaedia. WilyD 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lord does it need some cleaning, but the article legitimizes it, and it is, apparantly, a big part of British Lawyer culture. --PresN 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep After all that tagging, it's time to vote. This seems to satisfy the notability criteria guideline WP:WEB 1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself (see the references added to the article), it's inherently verifiable, and there don't seem to be any other deletion-worthy problems. (It needs cleanup, but that isn't a reason for deletion). --ais523 16:12, 13 July 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.