Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife (3rd 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. Sr 13 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExtraLife[edit]

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife (2nd nomination)

I was going to remove the external links from this, but that would leave no content. Seriously. This may be a notable topic, I have no idea, but this article is blatant promotion and if it hadn't just been undeleted I would delete it as lacking a claim of notability, blatant advertising AND no significant content other than links. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through this rigmarole before when I got the article to be undeleted.

First: No content? I'm not done writing it yet. It's a stub for crying out loud! Sheesh.

Second: The notability is proven in the article - it is ranked #9 of 57 by Major Spoilers and is ranked #192 of 9191 by TheWebcomicList. Also, it's been mentioned in a slew of magazines around the world. The creator of ExtraLife also created the largest World of Warcraft guild ("alea iacta est"), of which Leo Laporte is a member. The podcast (ExtraLife Radio) has interviewed Veronica Belmont of CNET. The video podcast (ExtraLife TV)

Third: Blatant advertising? What about Buzz_Out_Loud? Is that article an example of "Blatant Advertising" for CNET? What about Podtacular? Is THAT an example of "Blatant Advertising"? The only link on the article that gives any kind of money to anyone would be the link to HeroesForYou.com, which is a recent side project similar to Len Peralta's MonsterByMail.com. If you want me to make the article 100% money-free instead of 99%, I'll be happy to remove that bullet point.

Fourth: As far as having "no significant content", please refer to the bottom of the article, where it is listed as a stub. Furthermore, a request to the right of the identification of the article as a stub reads "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." - this implies that the author (me) knows that there is not a lot of content (yet) and is requesting aid in helping with content or lack thereof.

If you still have a problem with this article, I still have plenty of reasons why it should stay. I should know - I wrote it.
--Shaymus22 16:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stub, it's quite big, but most of it is weblinks to the site itself. Spam-mungous. Ugh. So what if the creator also created the largest WoW guild? Notability cannot be gained by association (and in any ase creating a WoW guild is not actually much of a claim). BuzzOutLoud is also irrelevant - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument (quite the opposite). Guy (Help!) 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow. It really does have an extra life, even after the decision has already been made. Clarityfiend 16:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment It has an extra life because I breathed one into it. The decision was wrong - that's what I'm here to prove. --Shaymus22 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam has been removed but all the same an article whose existence is a spam projectile has no place in wikipedia, SqueakBox 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "spam" is defined as links to prove ExtraLife's notability, then every article on Wikipedia should be deleted. As far as an article being a "spam projectile", I think that the list that I so very carefully created of guest hosts was very similar to that found at Buzz_Out_Loud.
I fail to see how pages like Penny_Arcade_(webcomic), Vgcats, and Buzz_Out_Loud are fine, but ExtraLife is not.
Also, as far as it being a stub, I put that there because I'm not done writing the article yet. I haven't gotten the chance - people keep wanting to delete it--Shaymus22 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can only judge the article as it is now and not as you promise to make it. This was the clearest example of a spam article I have ever seen, and people afdingg is no excuse for not improving the article, SqueakBox 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, is this article spam? If it is so clear, why are you the only person who has mentioned that it is spam so far? Also, as far as improving the article, I've just managed to restore it back to its original form, with the episode numbers, etc. Plus, I'm spending a lot of time arguing with you about whether or not all of my work will be in vain. --Shaymus22 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what I have added to the article (four cited third-party sources) should satisfy any notability concerns. Would you agree? --Shaymus22 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would not. You've got what appears to be 4 blogs and/or forums. Not what I'd consider reliable sources. DarkAudit 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you, crazy? "blogs and/or forums"? Did you even click the links? Joystiq is one the biggest gaming news site in the industry. And are you trying to say that Major Spoilers and TheWebcomicList aren't reliable sources? The only site that could POSSIBLY factor into your insane statement would be The Pisstakers, but that is only by a longshot. Look - you obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about, so why don't you bother someone else? --Shaymus22 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did click the links. They looked like blogs. And stop with the personal attacks before you find yourself blocked. DarkAudit 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because I have a huge history of personal attacks. Give me a break. --Shaymus22 00:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont have a huge contribs history and we try to discourage any personal attacks. If you went in to work and someone started calling you crazy they would doubtless be warned and if they continued would lose thier job. Respecting others is a foundation of our work here, SqueakBox 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in so many ways, and until that changes, I don't care about what happens to this article. ExtraLife had a real-life meetup at a theater that the fans bought out in Utah for Spiderman 3. People came from all over the country. They've organized several of these events before. The podcast has over 20,000 subscribers, with hundreds of new subscribers each week. If you search "Scott Johnson" (the most common name imaginable) on Google, ExtraLife is on the front page out of almost four million results.

If you want to try to tell me that ExtraLife is non-notable, be my guest. If you want to delete this article, go right ahead. Prove me right. Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in so many ways, and until that changes, I don't care what happens to this article. --Shaymus22 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC) PS: @SqueakBox - don't expect my 'contrib' history to get any larger any time soon. Kthxbye.[reply]

Delete - does not cite any reliable sources which support notability --Haemo 05:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still no valid sources. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has been deleted twice at AFD and its notability has not improved much since then. Sources are not reliable, does not satisfy WP:WEB. Many of my doubts concerning the sources were voiced at DRV here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 8. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:24, 11 June 2007 (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.