Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombo.com (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. Sr13 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Zombo.com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * KEEP IT! Because Zombo.com is Super Cool, and everyone is always welcome to zombo.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.182.209.61 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" No results found through a search of google news archives Corpx 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, has clearly expired its notability period + per nom. haz (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if a reliable source has deemed it an Internet Phenomena than add it to the list, otherwise, delete. Burzmali 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If I didn't know any better, I'd say it looked like a creator of a small website came on here and called his website a internet phenomenon due to his/her oversized ego. On second thought, I don't know any better because no sources whatsoever have been provided.-- daniel  folsom  16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It really is/was an internet phenomenon, and not only that it's actually pretty funny too. But the sourcing is very poor --some parts are supposedly copied verbatim from emails sent by the site's founder.  And the transcription constitutes a copyvio, especially since that's the entire content of the whole site. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, even though you can do anything at Zombo.com. I'm kind of sad, really, this is one of my favorite old-school internet memes.  Apparently finding adequate sourcing is unattainable, even for Zombo.com :(  ɑʀк ʏɑɴ  • (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I never liked it much myself, but other people did. Unfortunately none of them were reporters for reliable sources. The only place I can think of possible coverage would be one of the defunct internet magazines. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP!!! I just found the site today and had NO CLUE WHAT IT WAS! Wikipedia was my only source. PLEASE, do NOT delete it!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.183.185.133 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A piece of Internet history.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per The user formerly known as JackLumber and also out of the principle that it has already passed one nomination; a second one is probably not necessary. If something passes, why not just move on?  By the way, I do agree with Andrew above, however, that more sources should be added.  Take care!  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked and couldnt find any sources. If you can find any, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination.  Corpx  —The preceding  signed but undated.
 * Here's what I came across thus far (of course I'm not sure how many are reliable or whatever): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, etc. Plenty more on google, but 24 is a nice number.  Anyway, I am not too sure about at least half of these, but there seem to be enough references on the net to at least demonstrate notability.  I hope that helps.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WP:RS on what qualifies as a reliable source. Corpx 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily saying these are reliable by any means, but the large number of them does suggest that the Zombo deal must be fairly influential. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines are based on reliable sources, not google hits. Anyone can make a site and spam some url and chances are that google will index it.  This does not prove notability Corpx 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but some of those links are more descriptive and I only covered the first two pages of Google results as it seemed there were even more beyond that. Take care!  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been going through each of those links and not a single one of them is from a source that is reliable by Wikipedia standards, even though I do like the blog with the guy wearing the luchador mask. If they feature it on Good Morning America tommorow, we'll talk. otherwide.... see below. Trusilver 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Misty watercoloured memories I actually voted to keep this last time. But that was January 2005, a whole two and a half years ago, before many of our current policies and guidelines even existed, particularly those involving reliable sources for articles.  Consensus can sure as heck change in 31 months. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment :*(  But I like it... ~ Infrangible 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I like it too, but that doesn't make it notable. Resolute 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertation of notability. No objective and reliable references. Trusilver 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article's a mess in its current state, giving undue weight to the lyrics or whatever they are. No assertion of notability & zero reliable references. Doesn't look like there's much to be found, either - I'm active on two of the sites linked by the Great King above, but none of them fall under WP:RELY. Article probably unsalvageable if that's the best we can find. MrZaius  talk  13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess you can do anything at zombo.com, but you can't do anything at wikipedia.org. SlapAyoda (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I suppose it's useless to point out the absurdity of keeping the deletion discussion about this entry rather than just letting it stay on the Wiki? Anonymous (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.163.0 (talk)


 * 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.