Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gags on Around the Horn


 * 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. The current state of the article it's not worth merging, it's currently unsourced WP:NOR, trim that it's nearly an speedy and policy trumps consensus. I also discounted the obvious WP:ILIKEIT votes. Jaranda wat's sup 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Running gags on Around the Horn

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

giant list of unreferenced/nn fancruft, this violates a lot of WP:NOT and should not have its own page on here. Biggspowd 15:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with MASSIVE trims/Merge - A lot of the material in the list is very crufty and needs to be either heavily trimmed or removed outright, but a handful of the notes are staple features of the show...this is another one of those cases where "just because it isn't exhaustively sourced doesn't mean it isn't valid" applies. If the overall vote is to delete, I'd like to have the material placed on my userpage for future work and potential inclusion on the Around the Horn article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should note that user is a very active participant on said page. Biggspowd 17:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See discussion page, I'm not bringing an argument that doesn't directly address the AfD into the main debate space. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an argument for the afd, since you have a vested interest in the article, and that is to be noted on afds. Biggspowd 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Someone who has made just 14 of the nearly 200 edits to an article doesn't need to be called out about having a vested interest, especially with the implication that it should negate their comment -- we expect users who have worked on a page to comment here, that's one of the reasons we tag the page and why the Guide to Deletion says you should notify major contributors. Yes, it's polite to mention that you've been involved with the page, but either way your opinion shouldn't be discounted. (I've just noticed that Biggspowd is currently blocked, so I guess I won't be getting a reply, but I still wanted to mention that, as I fear it's a common misconstruing of this process and the concept of WP:COI.) Pinball22 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge I'm a fan of the show, but this doesn't really deserve its own article. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I love the show too, but this all stuff that belongs in a fan site, not an encyclopedia.  No real notability for anything on there Corpx 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It was taken off of the main Around the Horn page because it was judged to be too long, therefore deserving its own page. bmitchelf•T•F 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you're only commenting, so I'm mostly fending off others: If it's not encyclopedic, it doesn't matter whether it's in its own article or a section of a larger article, it doesn't belong. See WP:BHTT. Morgan Wick 08:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim and Merge per Willbyr. The Parsnip! 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with Trim 74.95.163.74 21:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge I honestly can't see the nominator's reasoning, in that reading WP:NOT, I don't see such violations, besides maybe that it is trivial. But it has to do with how the show is presented, similar to running gags on a scripted show, like The Simpsons. bmitchelf•T•F 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They should be deleted too. None of this is cited from anywhere and all are taken from somebody watching the show and labeling it a "running gag"  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpx (talk • contribs).


 * Delete pure fanboy stuff to me. Not Wiki material MarkinBoston 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is far less invasive than the massive universe of Simpsons cruft that is kept without references. Relaxing 12:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not a real reason to vote, saying "x is more crufty" does not mean that this should be kept. Dannycali 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Very crufty, unreferenced and nn. Dannycali 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a good article to read--Yankees10 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not a reason to keep an article, just because it is a "good article to read" does not make it notable. Dannycali 02:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Coment There is NO reason to delete it, thats why I am getting sick of wikipedia you guys delete things for no reason--Yankees10 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about the lack of notability for these running gags? Corpx 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or WP:NOT or the woeful lack of sourcing? Seriously, does something like this seem encyclopedic, or more like material for an ATH fan site? Morgan Wick 22:25, 26 August 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.