Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow's Nobodies (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. Chick Bowen 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Nobodies
Non-notable web series. Fails WP:V and WP:RS due to a lack of independent reliable sources. Looks like it fails WP:WEB as well. Was deleted previously: HERE. Wickethewok 03:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 03:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 04:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Regular delete. It's not close enough to meet G4. It still fails WP:V and WP:WEB. --Core des at 04:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:WEB, WP:V, or WP:RS. --Simonkoldyk 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article is clean and well organized almost every statement is backed up by an external link, and these guys were praised by someone who gets more traffic than MCDONALDS. I would call that notable. "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" "# The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Maddox definitely qualifies as a notable online broadcaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superslash (talk • contribs)
 * Being linked to or mentioned by Maddox or whatever is trivial. Maddox has talked about a lot of things and I'm sure linked to them as well.  Wickethewok 20:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion on maddox doesn't change the fact that he is one of the most trafficked websites on the internet. The same goes for newgrounds, another place their material is published. Consdering the nature of most of these comments, that only 3 of you are here and calling for a delete, and the way the last few attempts were handled with extreme prejudice it almost seems like you have something against TN. Face it man, the article just doesn't quality for deletion, whether you like them or not has no bearing on it. They meet the criteria for notability. --Superslash 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Maddox, but that has nothing to do with anything. Being linked to from a blog-like source would make just about every Geocities site valid for inclusion.  I've probably nominated hundreds of articles for deletion, and assure you I have had nothing personal against any of them.  Wickethewok 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:WEB,  Tewfik Talk 03:41, 26 October 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.