Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley the Republican (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 - the keeps were often based around sources being available, but this was negated by evidence questioning the validity of the sources.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Shelley the Republican (2nd)
No reliables sources and likely not notable. Kotepho 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Shelley the Republican
 * Delete same reasons we deleted it last time. Maybe it can be speedied as a re-creation? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: not notable.  Fa ir Ha ir  23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a re-creation, this time it's substantially expanded. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMO it would be a thorough waste to delete this article. Most of it seems to be verified (there are 13 references and 3 "citation needed" tags) and it seems to be quite well-known (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22shelleytherepublican.com%22). Nick8325 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Almost all of those "references" point at Shellytherepublican or Shellyuncovered--neither of which would be a reliable source.  One of the others points at a post on a Usenet group, and another is Google search results.  I'm voting delete on this one, for lack of reliable sources plus all the reasons discussed in the last AfD.  ergot 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I dunno. Most of the cited things say "Shelley the Republican says such and such", and I think a link to Shelley the Republican saying such and such is a good source for that... Nick8325 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I think it's notable enough. As far as sources go, it's a summary of what the website is and what it does. It has the primary source, what else does it need? Jaderaid 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft Keep- Have yet to see any good reason to delete it. If someone gives me a good one I'll change my vote.
 * Delete The site was notable -- it was a fairly high-trafficked site, and a very interesting social experiment. However, the Internet has a notoriously short attention span, and people seem to have forgotten the blog and moved along. In responce, the articles have lost their previous gleam and have become more and more radical in an effort to lure more people. The experiment has failed, and the site is no longer notable. Platonic Nirvana 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No good reason to delete, faily notable. Jhnphm 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "lack of reliable sources", "fails WP:WEB", and "already deleted by previous AfD" all seem like pretty good reasons to me. ergot 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a mish-mash of fake controvocy combined with barely relevant sources. The subjects of this article do not appear to want to be in Wikipedia anyway, so who are we trying to please by allowing this article to exist? My belief is that a key motivation of STR.com was a colbertesque prank on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, it was. I'm sure that I wasn't the only one who noticed that you are Tristan Shuddery, since you share the same e-mail address. 210.55.101.199 01:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A slightly bizarre and somewhat ammusing allegation, oh anonymous person. Anyway my vote still stands. For the record I have nothing to do with these racist *tards other than a bizarre interest in the site they have created. Had I attempted a wikipedia prank I would hope that I could have come up with something that isnt a painfully derivitive pastiche of Mr Colbert! As I stated previously I dont think it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley 01:17, 4 September 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.