Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underneath the Bunker


 * 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Underneath the Bunker

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Repeating my PROD rationale: "Non-notable web content. Article is sourced to blogs only (WP:SPS)." I'm sending this here for wider discussion, since PROD was contested per a comment on the talk page. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, it is understood that Underneath the Bunker may not, in some people's eyes, have received the recognition deserving of an encyclopoedia entry. I believe describing it as a 'hoax' however (as the wikipedia does) is unfair - and misleading. The website is clearly fictional in content (and is all fiction a hoax? I think not). This should, perhaps, be altered. Ultimately I do believe it is of enough interest to be included in wikipedia, as it has been around online for three years or so, with more than a hundred articles published over that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.49.22 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. Google search finds roughly 50 original hits when searching for "Underneath the Bunker" and "literary" (or "literature"), none of which look like reliable sources (and quite a few of them are about the song of the same name). Huon (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nomination and comments above. Renee (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No verifiable sources per WP:WEB. -- Nsevs •  Talk  14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Relating to the google hits, it is understandable that the majority of them relate to the song by R.E.M as this is almost fifteen years old and, though obscure in itself, is by a well-known band. Perhaps there should be wikipedia entry for this song; though whether that counts out the website (not explicitly related to the song, as far as I know) I'm not sure. The line 'none of which look like reliable sources' is charged with equivocal meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.15 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator (particularly relating to the two IP edits above). Wikipedia covers only topics which satisfy the notability criteria; in this case, the applicable guideline is WP:WEB. Roughly speaking, a web site is considered notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Currently, no such independent sources, which must be reliable and not self-published, have been found (via Google search or else). As long as such sources are not presented, the article fails the inclusion criteria. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps this entry should be deleted. The only good use it has is that it serves as a warning to vistors of the Underneath the Bunker journal, pointing out the satirical or 'spoof-like' nature of that site. But if this site is not, as you say, considered 'notable', then such a warning may be redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.12 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (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.