Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shit-Storm

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Shit-Storm
Delete as self-promotion. FreplySpang (talk) 01:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

*weak keep What is the threshold of notability for comedy troupes? Do they have to be nationally fameous?Roodog2k 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator.--nixie 02:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of other pages regarding comedy groups and people. (Unsigned comment by 67.86.9.248 on 02:17, 27 August 2005 UTC)
 * Question: Does this group have any media coverage or other evidence of a reasonably large audience? Kappa 02:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Those pages cover notable groups, that is, groups or individuals who have some claim to national fame. Rob Church Talk 02:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Vanity Page Guidelines: Lack of fame shouldn't be a reason for a delete.
 * Keep As a regular at the UCB theater, I can vouch for the fact that SS is a group worthy of an article. They have regular fans and are accomplished actors.
 * Unfortunately personal attestations won't go very far, especially from new users. Wikipedia needs nice verifiable evidence. Kappa 02:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's spelled shit-storm, but it's pronounced vanity page. Delete Dottore So 03:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads to much like vanity, "wave of popularity" "rave reviews." If it were re-started with different style I could accept notability. Marskell 12:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys. Come back later.  Delete.  Nandesuka 12:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, link supported advertising, unless anyone wants it "Userfied". Alf 13:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: link sponsored advertising? i don't see any.
 * Delete Based on what I saw on CurrentTV, and this apparent attempt to pad the votes by a number of anon users, agreed that its NN and I hereby change my vote. Roodog2k 17:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever that threshold may be, I can't imagine that its being met by a totally unreferenced article with the only external links being to the subject's own website and the theatre where the subject performs. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator Manik Raina 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete spam. Fire Star 20:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as of yet non-notable group. Sdedeo 21:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Trollderella when factual and verifiable become the only criteria for inclusion, someone will let you know and then your votes will be welcome indeed. Admin, please ignore this vote; it's tendentious. Dottore So 07:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Dottore So, your comment that "factual and verifiable" is not sufficient for inclusion is correct and relevant. I don't think your other comments are and I wish you'd consider editing them out. If you do so, please remove this comment at the same time. A vote is a vote, and actual VfD votes define our de facto policy, which policy pages codify. Trollderella cast his vote and gave a reason. I think it's a bad reason but that doesn't matter. I think it is way out of line to suggest that the acting sysop ignore a valid vote Sysops are supposed to judge consensus, not pass judgement on the rationale given by voters. By pointing out that the reason he gives is invalid, you may hope to influence him or other voters (or minimize the influence of his vote on other voters) but you shouldn't try to influence the acting sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete vanity, self-promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I was watching some show on Current, the TV Channel invented by Al Gore, and they were featuring this Billy Hot Chocolate guy. Shit-storm did not feature much in the show. My vote stands as above. :) Roodog2k 19:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as informative. Unsigned vote by User:24.215.231.69 13:48, August 29, 2005


 * Keep as informative, especially in light of contributions maqde from Shit-Storm member Eric Appel as writer for The Andy Milonakis Show; this page shows background.(UTC) Unsigned vote by User:24.195.25.159 16:09, August 29, 2005 


 * KeepShit-Storm!


 * Delete self promotion.


 * Delete Self agrandizing vanity. User:Capplebee


 * Keep Looking at the history of the entry, I don't think this is just self-promo.Bjones


 * KeepShit-Storm!

keep them


 * Keep it. This is informative.
 * Delete vanity. nonsense.


 * Keep A legitimate and respected improv group, keep this. User:Mattmoses


 * Delete I've seen them perform several times. They are neither legitimate nor respected except by the few of their more loyal audience members who still believe improv which "breaks the rules" is innovative or important. They're barely worthy of their ultimately meager following let alone of their inclusion in Wikipedia, which they admit on another webpage (http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/showthread.php?t=38587) began as a joke for the sake of both vanity and self-promotion.User:BJH


 * Keep BJH sounds like sour grapes. It still is helpful and interesting.


 * Delete BJH is basically correct. And the previous voter doesn't know what "sour grapes" means. 216.27.44.254

KEEP: Shit Storm is good, and worthy of this entry. delete: guilty as charged


 * I cant decide but one thing I am sure about is that Im going to see this handsome group shit-storm for myself at school night, hosted by Justin Purnell, on sept. 14 at the UCB theatre in New York

Keep: We may yet discover their importance.
 * Keep Why not keep them. This is history.

DeleteOne time I farted and everyone blamed it on my teacher.


 * Happy B-Day Billy Hot Chocolate

KEEP: Yeehaw!


 * Keep They are changing the face of the improv comedy scene.
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.