Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Opie and Anthony

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. --- Glen 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Opie and Anthony[edit]

Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-04. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony.

Very crufty. Do we really need seperate lists for all the friends of a celebrity? What's next? Friends of Jerry Seinfeld or Friends of Johnny Depp?--TBCTaLk?!? 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony--TBCTaLk?!? 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed the {{afd}} tag from Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony, as I cannot find any evidence that any move was made to actually nominate the article for deletion beyond the above mention and the adding of the tag to the article page. In any case, it was just nominated a month ago, and the consensus was keep. --Aaron 20:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The cruft is strong with this show. Wildthing61476 06:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both Abuse of Wikipedia as free webhost for fan group Bwithh 06:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-This content has no encyclopedic value and should be removed by all means necessary. What the hell is this crap?? Opie & Anthony dont need 10,000 different linking pages on Wikipedia. If they want to list Friends, then do so on their main Wiki Page. JPJ 05:21, 11 September 2006

Delete all per above. MER-C 10:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Should anyone do their homework, both this and Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony were both featured in the main Opie and Anthony Article, which is where all of this will be put right back into should this article be deleted. The Opie and Anthony article as a whole is way too long and that is why these various offshoots were created. Using the precident set by List of celebrity guests on the Howard Stern show and their Wack Pack Article, I think that it is fair for a radio show of equal or (now possinly greater) magnitude to do the same.

On a side note, "Friends of the Show" are an important part OF the show, which is why if it's not here, it will be back in the main article for its' relevance. Payneos 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a waste. This isn't an article, it's a list of nobodies. Billy Blythe 15:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge this stuff back into Opie and Anthony article. If Howard fans don't like it in there, they can put it on their T.S. list and mail it to the chaplain, as Stephen King would say.--XMBRIAN 15:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The friends are a major part of the radio show, and merging this list back into the original article would make it too long. --Bill.matthews 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Semi-Protect main article per Payneos' notes. The importants may or may not be undeniable to the fans, but this is taking up unnecessary space. --Dennis The TIger 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete both being that this information is unencyclopedic Opie and Anthony-cruft. This information belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both Unverifiable, Wikipedia-editor-selected, and therefore unencyclopedic. Fancruft, in a word, and it doesn't belong here. --kingboyk 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 21:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Billy Blythe. Lazybum 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and per my comments above Ohconfucius 09:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of claim of "Fancruft" but no specific cited example. This article mirrors that of the Wack Pack Article almost to a T in its' purpose, it will be made again in some form when it grows large in the main Opie and Anthony article. Deletion is whole-heartedly unnecessary, redundant, and destructive. And so far, I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Payneos 19:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe we need to whack the Wack Pack next. By the way, arguing "An article on X exists and therefore an article on Y should too" doesn't work. Lazybum 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm arguing on precident. The articles I've cited have been around much longer with little or no scrutiny. I think the articles all SHOULD remain, as I would fight for the Wack Pack as well, despite my not liking them personally, because it is a major part of Howard Stern's Show. That aside, there still has been no specific attempt to make the article better, just claim fancruft and move on. Payneos 01:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precedence counts for very little in Wikipedia, since it is a binding decision. Note that Wikipedia:No binding decisions is a part of the official policy. Lazybum 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename or merge back into Opie and Anthony. I get the feeling this article would be less controversial if it wasn't named "Friends of O&A", which implies pure listcruftiness. I think, given its length, it's a legit fork of Opie and Anthony, but it should probably be given a more generalized name like "O&A show characters". But if there's no consensus on that, I vote to merge it back into the main article. PS: You guys suck. --Aaron 20:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's fair. We can probably work on that should this survive deletion. Payneos 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not of wiki value. Arbusto 02:57, 15 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.