Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoHomers.net (second 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoHomers.net

This Internet forum does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. It has only 1,023 active members and an Alexa ranking of 205,358. The only references are forum threads, and the forum does not seem to be subject of any non-trivial documentation. It survived a debate with no consensus in February 2006. One claim to fame seems to be a reference in a Simpsons episode (see [1]), but Wikipedia does not have separate articles for every reference in Simpsons episodes. And oh, the founder of the site was in a brief interview with Blender Magazine, but this can hardly be called non-trivial. Punkmorten 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:WEB (whoever disagrees needs to show how it doesn't. The onus has to be on the defenders now). Batmanand | Talk 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:WEB. Ale_Jrb ^talk 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reading the article (specifically the Show Involvement section) and the previous AfD, I'm convinced that this is deserving of an article. Looking strictly at WP:WEB (which is only a guideline, not absolute law) would indicate that we should delete this, but if all else fails, ignore all rules and do what's best. --Daniel Olsen 22:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Daniel Olsen. There are a number of little things working in this article's favor, none of which would be good enough on their own, but the sum total makes me conclude that bypassing the letter of the WP:WEB guidelines would be advisable in this case. In internet forum terms this site is ancient (2001), it has some press coverage from a major outlet, it was mentioned multiple times by the series creator, and there have been other verifiable claims about staff involvement. Irongargoyle 23:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the two above. Also, it was mentioned on the commentary for three (I think) episodes of The Simpsons (two were on the season that just came out), and Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein answered questions from the websites members a while back, so it has obviously been recognized several times by the Simpsons staff, not just the time mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpenoctem (talk • contribs)

Another is mentions by Show Creators in the dvd commentaries for seasons 6 and 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshy0 (talk • contribs)

Keep, per above. If we aren't going to keep it as an individual article, then we should at least merge it with alt.tv.simpsons and The Simpsons Archive to make a single article on Simpsons internet fandom. Zagalejo 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per creator's recognition of the website. On several dvd commentaries. --Will Mak 050389 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For those that have already mentioned the season 8 DVD commentaries mentioning No Homers, and for those willing to hear it, I shall share them both here: "Citizen Kang" DVD commentary and "Homer's Enemy" DVD commentary. With acknowledgment from the show producers themselves (on several occasions, including on the board itself), I'd say it's more than just a message board and certainly more than worthy of keeping its article on Wikipedia regardless of Alexa rankings and such. Ericbighead
Keep Per above commentary references. Clearly, the recognition by the shows creators on the DVDs themselves (and these are mass-market DVDs, not a niche-product aimed only at fans) seperates this site from others, and adheres to WP:WEB guidelines. Second Zagalejo's suggestion that if nothing else, this article should be merged with other well-known Simpsons sites covered by Wiki into an article on Simpsons fandom. Filmmakker 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above --Rubber cat 05:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Out of curiosity, which topic has more articles, Pokemon or The Simpsons? RFerreira 07:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The site may not have many members but it has been referenced by the show numerous times. Just the fact that a website could get that much attention fromt he show developers makes it a very notable website. It is been in various DVD commentaries and has been referenced in episodes. The staff of the show has posted on the site as well. --Looking Glass 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Article was nominated in bad faith, with no new arguments since the last AfD. -Kaizersoze 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not seeing any particular indication of bad faith here (even though I disagree with the nom). Irongargoyle 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.