Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhatIsJoppa.com

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. After much sturm und drang, what we have is that there is a website, with a MySpace page, based in Newburyport, which has had one article written about it by the local-local Newburyport paper. I don't think this meets WP:WEB, which calls for multiple non-trivial articles, and we have at most one. The proponents of the article claim several important newspapers are just about to write about this website. This is great; as soon as these articles come out, the page can come back. I'll userfy the page to the creator's userspace since there were many edits on the page. --- Deville (Talk) 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, the link to the userfied page is User:Therealdantheman/WhatIsJoppa.com --- Deville (Talk) 22:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

WhatIsJoppa.com[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. A google search for "what is joppa" brings forth 37 hits [1]. The only claim of notability in the article is from a newspaper [2]...a newspaper that only distributes 8000 copies as the author of the article even admits [3]. IrishGuy ^talk 23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IrishGuy ^talk 03:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (BTW - 5,240 hits) From what I recently heard, the Joppa team are to appear in three more articles, in larger distribution periodicals. This is was the only policy based reason as I see it for the article to be deleted, the site now meets the criteria (multiple non trivial published works). - Quolnok 11:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment can you provide some verifiable proof that this will appear in three periodicals? IrishGuy ^talk 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment - What does "verifiable proof" mean? Does a screenshot of a forum PM from WhatIsJoppa.com#Ben_M._Watts count? The articles are likely to be published within the space of a month (purely based on my estimates) as interviews either have taken place or will be on Friday/today. Also apparently they are to be "Featured Comedian" next wednesday on MySpace's Comedy department. The periodicals in question, now mentioned in the article, have websites and may post the interviews there after publishing. - Quolnok 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable means providing some proof beyond one person stating that this is the case. IrishGuy ^talk 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated? There are certainly other less deserving articles out there and many don't remotely meet any wikipedia policy. Given about a month there will be some verifiable proof - Quolnok 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contrary to what a lot of people on the internet think, Google is not the end-all be-all of notability. GreatGatsby 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not...but the article provides no other evidence of notability. IrishGuy ^talk 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The podcast was a top 5 or so on iTunes at one point, a google search for "what is joppa" actually returns 5,300 not 37 hits (are you blind?), and articles about the group have been published or are scheduled to be published as cited by Quolnok. The spirit and criteria of WP:WEB is satisfied in my eyes.; lets focus on real violators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.136.179 (talk • contribs)

There aren't 5,000 hits. Some have nothing to do with this [4], others are multiple hits of the same site. The criteria of WP:WEB has not been met until the existence of these articles can be verified. IrishGuy ^talk 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

37 is clearly a guestimate. By this logic a search for whatisjoppa.com gives 119 which is a better guestimate. - Quolnok 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did you get the number 37 from? Additionally, why are you so hostile? Has Joppa offended you, or possibly a family member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

Additionally, why are you so hostile? Some people are far too literal and vigilant about the rules on Wikipedia. It should be as inclusive as possible, but tell that to people who camp in the recent changes. GreatGatsby 22:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been hostile. I have simply asked for verifiable proof of the claims being made. If those can be provided than this AfD can end shortly thereafter. IrishGuy ^talk 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Simply" asking for proof and having an attitude while asking for proof are two different things; you have been hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I haven't been hostile. I am, however, getting tired of replying to anonymous attack posts. IrishGuy ^talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am no more anonymous that the person hiding behind "IrishGuy" as a moniker. You have my IP, you know there are several different people defending the unprovoked and unwarranted hostile provocation, more do you want? Even if you delete the article, it will be posted again because it has enough notoriety to warrant it's inclusion in Wikipedia, despite your onslaught and poor argumentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

Readding a deleted article is considered vandalism. I don't think you should really be bragging about your intentions to vandalize in the future. IrishGuy ^talk 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call it protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

Frankly, it is irrelevant what terminology you choose to use. If the article fails AfD it shouldn't be recreated without going through the proper process. Otherwise it can, and will, be speedy deleted. The person who continually recreates it is subject to being blocked from Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted then wikipedia has jumped the shark and being blocked would not affect me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

Of course not. You are just here to publicize Joppa. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That assumption is incorrect. Please do not make assumptions; it's silly. Also, quit editing my posts by adding a signature, I do not want one. Would you like me to edit your signature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

I'm adding your signature via the unsigned template so the closing admin can tell who made which comments. If you attempt to alter my signature it will simply be reverted and you run the risk of being blocked for vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in altering your signature, I was proving point. Please do not add a signature to my posts or I will be forced to report you for vandalism and you may be blocked from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

The guidlines on a notible article are hardly as hard set as you make them seem. Quoted from the Notability guidline section itself; "The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." Now, I would understand if Joppa had never been in any sort of media coverage at all. But as long as it holds it's place in a newpaper with a considerable readership, that being 8,000 copies, and not only be mentioned in that paper but put on the front page, it holds its place as "newsworthy," regardless of the level of "newsworthy-ness" it claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

Keep Since Google seems to be the search engine of choice, let it also be mentioned that if you simply type "Joppa" into the search engine, you will notice that the group is the #1 hit. This says a lot, seeing as Joppa is also a "notable" city in the Bible, as well as a very "notable" nature preserve in Newburyport, as well as a very "notable" city in Maryland (not to mention the name of some other notable companies, all existing long before whatisjoppa.com). So, in a world of Joppas, if the first thing that shows up is whatisjoppa.com, then I would say it's been made somewhat notable. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.157.174 (talk • contribs) this is one of the members of Joppa. Voting for himself is WP:VAIN. IrishGuy ^talk 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point. GreatGatsby 22:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first return for an unlikely search doesn't illustrate notability. It just illustrates that not many sites use that word. IrishGuy ^talk 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I completely disagree. It illustrates that it is the most notable Joppa-related site. It is the first site to come up, out of a total of 2,200,000 sites.--EndlessVince 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A search for the word Joppa results in 2,280,000 hits. I beg to differ with your previous statement. (Also notice that What is Joppa still is first on THAT list.) If you are going to argue that Joppa is an uncommon word, then a Google search shouldn't even be used as a means to signify notability at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't quite work that way. Saturday Night Live wasn't a common phrase until the show premiered. As such, that phrase garners many hits...because it is notable. Joppa isn't. Hence it doesn't garner as many hits. IrishGuy ^talk 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the words 'Saturday' 'Night' and 'Live' are common words, which could range from "I had a great Saturday" to "Last night was off the hook!" Also, "Saturday Night Live" generates many hits because it's on a notable broadcasting network. A search resulting in "NBC- Saturday Night Live" hardly qualifies as a symbol of notability. I don't quite understand your using this example in the first place, we're not even comparing What is Joppa to the notability level of Saturday Night Live. Saturday Night Live is on TV, Joppa isn't. That's like comparing The Prarie Home Companion to the X-Files. They deal in completely different fields of media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

I said common phrase not common words. IrishGuy ^talk 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, his point stands and I for one agree the article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

What anonymous users believe is largely irrelevant. IrishGuy ^talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate, for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

Not really. IrishGuy ^talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

Because Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not simply a place for anonymous users to publicize their websites. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are wrong. It is not my website, and I am not looking for free publicity. In fact, I don't think anyone is looking for publicity, it's a reference page only. We are interested in having a reference page on wikipedia. And why the opposition to anonimity? If the information is correct why does it matter if it comes from an anonymous source or a thinly veiled moniker (IrishGuy), or a fully disclosed individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

There is no way to know if the information is correct without providing verification. The fact that you are proudly anonymous and refuse to sign posts doesn't auger well for your professed honesty. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasonable connection between anonymity and honesty. anonymous, veiled, and those out in the open can all be honest, dishonest, or somewhere in between. I refuse to sign, because you insist that I sign. Approaching the signatures with some courtesy would go a long way. Had you asked for me to add ~~~~ to the end of my post because you were having a hard time tracking the discussion thread, it would have come off better than trying to bully everyone around. At the very least I would have respected where you were coming from, even if your core argument is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

Keep and Comment. A google search isn't the appropriate test for notability in this case. The Whatisjoppa.com is notable for its widespread viewership (~40,000) and its press coverage, which promises (literally) to expand very soon. The podcast was in the top few podcasts on iTunes[5] at the time, and was featured as "New and Notable"[6] (haha) on the front iTunes podcast page. I'd also like to comment that I still don't feel comfortable leaving the article unstubbed. I don't think the stub tag should be removed until the press coverage section is expanded as well as the character section. Additionally, I'd like to point out that this AfD is doomed to fail reaching consensus. Also, as an inclusionist, I'd like to point out that the concept of "notability" is objective and is sourced from a simple essay that is not an official Wikipedia Policy or Guideline. --EndlessVince 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, According to WP:WEB, Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria...The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. I would consider "New and Notable" an award (hand selected from a notable source). This ends the dispute of notability. --EndlessVince 04:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New and Notable isn't an award. IrishGuy ^talk 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it, since when? "An award is something given to a person or group of people to recognize excellence in a certain field." Quoted from the Award entry on Wikipedia. Thus the position of "New and Notable" is an award, as it was given to recognize a group as something worth looking at. Your previous claim was not only poorly clarified but also illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

It isn't an award. It was a brief mention along with many other sites. That isn't an award. IrishGuy ^talk 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather hard to argue on a point if your reply to everything is simply "No it isn't, you are wrong." It was mentioned for a reason. If I made a podcast and put it up on iTunes, it wouldn't automatically recieve "New and Notable." Only sites that deserve to be placed on that standing recieve the standing. That is what qualifies it as a reward; selectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

An award is something that is either given to a site or is archived. This was a brief mention. It isn't an award. Please sign your posts. IrishGuy ^talk 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The position on the "New and Noticable" list was GIVEN to the site because they held a high rank on the top downloads list, even though they were new to the iTunes podcasts section. They ACHIEVED it by recieving a great deal of attention, aka downloads. The term "brief mention" would be iTunes creating something like a "New Posters" list where EVERYONE who was new was shown. An example of a "brief mention" is the "Cool New People" list on Myspace. That is not the case here. My posts are signed as my IP, and will continue to be. There is no significance in me posting a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

I couldn't care less that you don't use a username. Your posts haven't been signed. I have had to go in and add an unsigned template. Please use ~~~~ at the end of your post to sign it. As for the mention, it was listed with many others for a brief period of time. It is no longer up there and nothing was given to Joppa, hence it isn't an award. IrishGuy ^talk 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your comment is just a suggestion, not a rule (the page says "On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes" and there is no mention of a signing requirement). Though I'm sure you thought it might be possible to have this page also scheduled for deletion based on disobaying the sacred "signing your post" rule. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk • contribs)

If you don't start signing them, I will cease to reply to them. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before you continue in your highly uncivil manner. IrishGuy ^talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to forefit, that would make me very happy. In the future, please do not edit my posts by adding a false signature. I have not been uncivil, you may want to read the text of my posts again... carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

I haven't given you a false signature, just your actual one. IrishGuy ^talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You signing for me makes it false. See your signature above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

Actually, there is a template for just this sort of thing. It isn't a false signature for me to tag your comments as unsigned. Please stop vandalizing this page. IrishGuy ^talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion, not vandalism. It's a silly discussion and this is why you are receiving a silly response, but it's a discussion nonetheless. I for one do not take the crusade to delete the article seriously. It qualifies to stay based on the points raised by others in this discussion. Why you continue to press the issue is beyond me; it's moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

It is vandalism to alter posts and/or signatures in an AfD. If you don't take the AfD seriously, then simply leave. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you continue to alter my intentional blank signature, by vandalizing the site and adding a signature despite my obvious choice not to do so. Please follow your own rules before attacking others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

This has already been answered. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you continue to vandalize the page. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

An award does not have to be material... It was given a position. A position not everybody had. Also, the list is updated. That doesn't mean it was never there. Also, 32 people out of ALL PODCASTS on iTunes is not "many people." In essence, you're now difining an award as "An exclusive reward given to a tiny group of people after which it is never given to anyone else." So I guess the Oscars aren't an award.~~~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

Also, just to prove my previous point. There are according to iTunes (http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/) there are 35,000 podcasts on iTunes. 32 out of 35,000 is less than 0.001% of all podcasts.~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

At what point did I say an award is an exclusive reward given to a tiny group of people after which it is never given to anyone else? I didn't. Please abstain from using strawmen arguments. A constantly updating list of 32 isn't exactly notable. IrishGuy ^talk 23:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can complain about strawmen, which I'm not sure is accurate in this case, but it's okay to fabricate numbers, such as the 37 hits for joppa? four tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk • contribs)

I note that you danced around the fact that you completely made up and argument to rebut. IrishGuy ^talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no argument to stand on. Notoriety has been established and you have yet to validate the 37 hits you claimed as evidence for the deletion, nor have you updated your argument asking for proof despite the solid notoriety through google argument. There is no dancing on my part; there was no argument rebuilt on your part; if you something substantial to add to the conversation I suggest you do so shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

Provide something verifiable or simply let it go. Read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy ^talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment It seems that neither party is eager to yield any ground on this issue. Perhaps it would be effective to give the other party some way to prove their point, rather than shooting down the ones already made. Perhaps "Irishguy" could tell the unsigned user above what exactly what proof/evidence it would take to reach consensus on this issue, or perhaps the unsigned could do the same. perilouspenguin ^talk

I already have. I asked for some verifiable proof that this will appear in three periodicals. As a side note, I find it very curious that there are so many new users who come straight to this AfD with no other edits in their history. IrishGuy ^talk 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very curious that only one guy seems to want it gone. also:
"If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated? There are certainly other less deserving articles out there and many don't remotely meet any wikipedia policy. Given about a month there will be some verifiable proof - Quolnok 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)"
I don't believe proof, as you define it, will exist for about a month and these cases settle within a week usually, so please, answer above question. - Quolnok 02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"so many new users" one is many? there are 7 persons who've edited this, 2 are IPs not users and may be the same as one of the other users, one of these has voted (from what I hear such votes don't count and only people with an edit history count) this leaves 4, including 1 (you) against the article. These people probably just looked at the article about (one of) their favourite show(s) and were upset about the pending delete. again: "If this attempt to delete the article does go through, how many of those articles do you believe need to be published/posted online before it is recreated?" - Quolnok 03:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to the italicized question, all it takes is one notable publication. Also, I don't find it very curious that there are many new users to comment. However, I'd like to point out I am not one of them. As a response to Quolnok's vote count: Wikipedia isn't a democracy. The point is to come to a consensus about the fate of the article. As there is no consensus, the article will stay. It has been argued that the article in question is in fact notable, and some of those reasons (i.e. the "New and Notable award) are verifiable. The dispute on verifiability is very much based on opinion (such as the definition of "award", which objectively favors the article's survival). --EndlessVince 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your inferrence that these accounts and comments are fake: Just because we don't live and die by the creation, editing, and management of Wikipedia, does not mean we don't use Wikipedia nor does it mean the fans of the actual article don't find the impromptu crucase to delete a worthy page extremely unsettling. The page in question meets Wikipedia's criteria regardless of your need for verifiable proof; the above discussions all refute your stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.90 (talk • contribs)

As a general rule, little weight is given to anonymous and new editors in AfDs due to the possibility of sockpuppetry. Hence my bringing it up. IrishGuy ^talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the entrenched dictate deletions and are able to bully their way through the discussion process? Seems to go against the spirit of wikipedia. I may not have the rules to wikipedia on my clipboard ready to be pasted, but give me a break; our opinions should count as users of wikipedia regardless of contributions, edits, and allegiance to the wikipedia nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

You aren't a user. You are someone who appeared simply to stack the vote in your favor. IrishGuy ^talk 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a user of wikipedia in the sense that I USE it for reference. I am not a user of wikipedia in the sense that I maintain or create pages. The fact that this USER is unhappy that a valuable reference page will be deleted without warrant makes this USER's vote count. Does that make any sense to you? Without USERS who reference wikipedia, it ceases to exist. You need to take this USER's vote and opinion seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

You are here simply to publicize Joppa as you have admitted above. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I admit it above? Please show me proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

I'm still waiting in anticipation for that proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

One more note on the notability section; Wikipedia: Notability (web) states that "Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 3.The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." A podcast on iTunes, a VERY well know online broadcaster clearly qualifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

iTunes wouldn't meet those guidelines as the creators put it on iTunes. It was not distributed there independent of the Joppa folks. IrishGuy ^talk 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, clarification because people missinterpreted my comment - I'm aware it isn't a democracy, that was to show a lack of support for the delete. (this may not be targeted at me) I don't believe the editless accounts to be fake, I believe IrishGuy believes that they are. The Italicised question was for IrishGuy, because he seems to think that only when they get printed (ie evidence exists) it would then qualify as notable, thus if the (wiki)article were to be deleted (which I doubt) it could be recreated once said articles exist. - Quolnok 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is the case. If this article was deleted due to lack of meeting WP:WEB, if at a later date sources could be provided that do meet WP:WEB, the article could be recreated. AfDs aren't personal. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Joppa or the people associated with it. It is strictly dealing with the article and the guidelines of Wikipedia. Currently, the article doesn't meet WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this discussion because I was at the Joppa Wiki and saw the notice, and for no other reason. Before I posted anything on this discussion I wasn't aware that it would merit such a large response. I also did not know that the AfD was inteded as a discussion between registered members only, so I proceeded to comment, without hesitation, my reasons to keep the Joppa Wiki alive. At the very beginning I proceeded to read all the guidelines and formalities, as that's the only way one can win an argument, when one knows all the information. Now I realize you may think I'm more than one person, and I can't create any assurance as to wether or not I am, except for my word. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.72.81.58.236

No, no, it is okay for non members to discuss this stuff, it is an open discussion. - Quolnok 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be the new user everyone's talking about, and yes I could see how I might seem to be a sock puppet, this being really my first edit. But I would say that I've been the victim of circumstance...my comment above you may notice wasn't really vying for either side, I was simply attempting to help this issue move along; thus I don't really see how that kind of a comment would come from a sock puppet...I guess if sock puppets are helping to move discussions towards a compromise and resolution, then maybe more people should use them. But anyway, I was simply browsing articles of things I have knowledge about, looking for a good place to edit or create when I found that the joppa wiki was up for AfD, and decided to jump in. I know this gives no grounds for me either being or not being a sock puppet, I just thought the story should be told. perilouspenguin ^talk

Actually, no people shouldn't use sockpuppets. It is clear that most, if not all, of you came from this forum post. IrishGuy ^talk 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that post alerted us to the desire to delete this page, why should that taint our opinon? With or without the alert, the article meets the criteria and should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.106.17 (talk • contribs)

Simply repeatedly saying doesn't make it true. You haven't provided any verifiable evidence of notability. IrishGuy ^talk 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've put forward different types of evidence we thought would prove it. We haven't just been sitting here and saying "Joppa is notable" one after another. We've been trying to make a case.72.81.58.236

When I point out in WP:WEB that what you provide doesn't fit the criteria, you simply insist that it does. Thus far, you have just been parroting the same line again and again. I get it. You want Joppa to have an entry. Unfortunately, you don't meet the criteria of WP:WEB unless you can provide some verifiable sources which fit the perameters given. IrishGuy ^talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I insist because I have to make sure that there is no way something I find might fit. It's simple debate procedure. Argument and counter-argument. True, sometimes a point is over-streached by other members of the discussion, but I think that saying we've just keep saying Joppa is notible over and over again is not true. Sorry, but I feel that that comment was not correct. 72.81.58.236

You aren't debating. You are creating things. The criteria for meeting WP:WEB isn't up for debate. You meet it or you don't. Thus far, you don't. IrishGuy ^talk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? WP:WEB in statest; "This page gives some ROUGH guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use." A GUIDELINE's application toward something is very much up to debate. If it wasn't we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss the deletion process. We have two credible newspapers. You're stating that what we have isn't enough. I consider that a debate. The guidelines, once again, don't state the amount of media coverage a website needs to recieve, just that it needs to appear in multiple publications. Which it has.72.81.58.236 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It expressely states non trivial media. There is a world of difference between national media and local media. You have a local newspaper. That just isn't enough. IrishGuy ^talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is Ben from the group Joppa. I'm really impressed with the dedication that our fans have put in to keeping this Wiki page alive, so thanks to all who have contributed. If I may address IrishGuy, I just wanted to confirm to you that we had an interview with the Newburyport Daily News (14,000 home deliveries daily) this past Friday, and the article will run a week from tomorrow, we just need to meet with the staff photographer. It seems to me that the paper posts all of it's articles online, but if such is not the case, how would I go about getting that proof to you? Additionally, would this end the debate as to whether or not the group had acheived Noteworthy status? Of course, we see the importance of adhering to Wiki guidelines, but two newspaper articles seems to be more than what the guidelines require, regardless of their locale or subscription size. Our fans have spent a lot of time and effort putting this page together, and I'd hate to see that effort go to waste. Thank you. 72.71.226.92 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Not only is this one of the members of Joppa, and therefore this vote is WP:VAIN, but he has voted twice to stack the vote [7]. IrishGuy ^talk 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ben. The criteria for inclusion on WP:WEB states: This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. Under that heading, the footnote gives examples such as The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired. I'm afraid that two local papers probably don't fit WP:WEB. As for the iTunes argument, WP:WEB states: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster the fact that the group itself put the downloads up on iTunes makes it difficult to argue that it is completely independent of Joppa. This isn't personal. It isn't an attack on your group or your site. Please don't take it that way. There are hundreds of AfDs every day. Some pass, others don't. IrishGuy ^talk 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so twenty thousand people seeing it in print and forty thousand people seeing it online isn't enough. Makes sense. GreatGatsby 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And these numbers come from where? IrishGuy ^talk 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers are presumably from the advertising page. If you go down about 2/3rd of the way you will find that it says;

"What is your circulation?

14,000-plus homes. With more than two readers per household, that translates into about 28,000 readers on any given day." 72.81.58.236 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add the link, here it is; http://plus.newburyportnews.com/ze/info/advertising.htm 72.81.58.236 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...? IrishGuy ^talk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking us like we made this up? This is their statistics. I assume they did the proper research before making the previous satement. I was in fact quoting someone else. If you do not believe statements other companies make, then direct your questions at them.72.81.58.236 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...?" Are you serious? No really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

Yes I am serious. Claims of notability must be verifiable. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And you have exactly what to verify that each home has two readers per household...?" That sentence has nothing to do with verifying notability, it's nitpicking and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

It is asking for verification. Anyone can make a claim. IrishGuy ^talk 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then read the evidence offered, rather than spout nonsense about seeing proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

It isn't my job to do your research for you. You are the one making claims about circulation, as such it is your job to provide a link to prove that you aren't making such statistics up. IrishGuy ^talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I did. Let me just show it to you again, in case you missed it, 3 sentences above this post; http://plus.newburyportnews.com/ze/info/advertising.htm I'm sure you won't find it too hard to scroll down and read the section I had quoted.72.81.58.236 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am referring to when I ask "are you serious?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

Census? Average household population minus something? a few posibilities. - Quolnok 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see why this discussion must continue. All evidence for notability has been presented and verified. The nominator for deletion disagrees on the importance of the evidence, but all other editors, such as myself and Quolnok, agree that the subject meets notability criteria and should remain. Unless there's something new to add, which I don't foresee, need any more be said?--EndlessVince 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you and Quolnok helped create the article as well as are active on their forums, the fact that you find trivial local papers to be enough criteria isn't surprising. Nor does it carry any extra weight. IrishGuy ^talk 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only person who has a problem with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.56 (talk • contribs)

If he is right, there should be someone around who will agree with him. - Quolnok 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is The Boston Globe also a local paper? Granted I don't know if that article printed yet but I don't know how "local paper" is defined. Does the paper need to be in a whole state? ...whole country? ~~...whole planet?~~ ...somewhere in between? I'm guessing there only needs to be one nonlocal paper to accompany the local ones. - Quolnok 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe is eminently notable. The problem is you have yet to show verifiable evidence that they will appear in the paper. IrishGuy ^talk 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

IrishGuy is mistaken in regards to WP:WEB requirements. Perhaps you read the title of the page without delving into the main body. Their site clearly meets one of the single necessary guidelines required on WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Please re-read this if you haven't already. The guideline, while called a "notability guideline," does not actually state that the site has to be the subject of multiple NOTABLE published works. They need merely be NON-TRIVIAL published works.

A 'zine that someone photocopies in CVS and passes out at punk shows is arguably trivial. A weekly publication like The Wire (which has a sizeable readership in urban areas like Portsmouth, NH as well as other locations in MA)is certainly not trivial by any definition of the word. To suggest that the Newburyport News is somehow trival is actually laughable; the paper is owned by the Eagle-Tribune Newspaper Company, a major area publishing group, and has a wider circulation than the second Newburyport paper (that's right, there are two of them) which is owned by the Herald Media group, often associated with the Boston Herald. You said above: "It isn't my job to do your research for you. You are the one making claims about circulation, as such it is your job to provide a link to prove that you aren't making such statistics up." You were provided with a link that within all reasonabilty proves the circulation of the paper, and your response was to change tack and ignore the link. Is it possible that you're just trying to be difficult here?

Please also review the bulleted portion of the Notability requirements reading: "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles." Reliability is actually the issue here, not notability in terms of readership. And according to the wording of this requirement, all a published work has to do to be reliable is to be a newspaper or magazine article! It doesn't matter what the circulation is, so long as the published work is a newspaper or a magazine. Again, you need to actually read these requirements. The wire has been sufficiently proven to be a reliable paper and the Newburyport News again fulfills the requirement; all they have to do to be reliable, according to WP:WEB, is to exist as magazine or newspaper publications (as opposed to zines, agitskis, or other "unreliable" published media).

Your objection only holds any water at all until the Newburyport News article runs next week because until that point only one non-trivial publication has covered Joppa.com. After that, there is absolutely no reason to object to the Joppa wikipedia entry, as it will clearly and without room for argument fulfill the guideline that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself," unless YOU want to get in touch with the Newburyport News and question them as to the veracity of their claims regarding readership, or get in touch with the Wire to find out whether they're actually just a joppa front organization.

To conclude: once the Joppa wiki article links to the wire AND the Newburyport News, you would be well served to drop the issue. This is only one man's opinion, but the requirements guidelines don't really leave you a lot of wiggle room.

I am not a regular viewer of Joppa and I am not closely aquainted with the makers of the show. You can choose to make my identity a sticking point, but the validity of my argument is intact. 151.199.18.140 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)SomeonefromNS[reply]

Non-trivial and non-notable are pretty much synonymous. When a local paper only has a local readership, it isn't grounds to illustrate notability. This is a generally encyclopedia. It is about far more than a small area of New England. Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. You were skirting the line quite a few times in that post. IrishGuy ^talk 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you didn't mean to make it sound that way, but I've on several occassions heard you use a "judgemental tone" as well. Also, please add some basis to your statement. By saying that non-trivial and non-notable are pretty much synonymous, I would like to see some evidence of that satement, may it be previously decided cases made by other editors, (not yourself as we already know your opinion,) a dictionary definition, or a general article which makes that claim. Otherwise your argument hardly holds any water. Also, I would like to note that Wikipedia is trying to create, in essense an encyclopedia of all knowledge, regardless of its notability in certain areas. Were this a general encyclopedia, many of the articles you and others have posted would not fall under "general." Simply because a topic is more notable in one area than another does not mean it isn't notible at all. Your article about "Keith Barry" is a perfect example, as people in Europe would find it MUCH more notable than anyone in America or other parts of the world. This is simply my point of view in this matter, please consider it. 72.81.58.236 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something is trivial, it cannot be notable. If something is notable, it wouldn't be trivial. Hence, non-trivial and non-notable are basically synonymous. Contrary to your statement, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of all knowledge. Keith Barry had a national television special. Joppa has not. IrishGuy ^talk 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my previous question rather than simply arguing my comments. I asked for vertiable proof that non-trivial and non-notable were the same thing. Not your opinion, we already have that. Also, claiming a local newspaper run by a larger corporation isn't notable is a poor statement. Please rephrase so I can understand what you're saying better. 72.81.58.236 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-trivial" and "non-notable" are hardly synonymous. I thougt wikipedia was a place for defining things. Maybe those two terms should be defined here to clear up the confusion. Or, maybe those terms are, in themselves, not notable enough for this site...don't know. By the way, this is Thom of the group Joppa, and just wanted to see how the discussion was going, but couldn't help but react to such an etymological mistake.

And, just to add something here: it does appear that IrishGuy has a some point to make about notability, and is not really making it. A number of people here have quoted the guidelines of this site pretty clearly, and proved in favor of keeping the article. I, personally, feel that you are much mistaken in believing this is a means to "promote" our group. Hardly. Sorry, but more folks will be hearing about us in the Newburyport News, The Wire, on iTunes, and next week as a featured comedian on MySpace, then will ever come to us through this article. So, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if this were deleted. However, I would be upset that so much of the hard work these fans have put in to make this a perfect reference for people visiting our site would be wasted--because, it DOES NOT violate any guidelines of wikipedia, as have been proved more times here than I need to prove again.

Wikipedia is a great place for references. And, that's what this article is all about. It's a reference for the viewship of Joppa to better understand the people and places involved with the show. Let me end by a quote from wikipedia's guidelines: "Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community...A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." 24.61.157.174 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other anonymous posters continue to assert that you have met WP:WEB...and yet you haven't. Local newspapers do not notability make. While claims have been made that interviews have taken place with larger notable papers, no verifiable evidence has been presented to validate these claims. IrishGuy ^talk 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then the entire quotation he presented to you is void? Just wondering. 72.81.58.236 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is void. What the quote outlined was the belief that rigid blind obedience to rules hinders progress, which is true. Adding a non-notable article to Wikipedia isn't what that quote was about. IrishGuy ^talk 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, are you still defying Webster by asserting that "non-notable" and "non-trivial" are synonymous? The purpose of this discussion is so that one party can respond to points of another. You responded to nothing. You just continue to cut and paste previous posts of yours that are based on opinion rather than fact. Calling the merits of a "local paper" or a number of New England publications non-notable is an opinion. This is Thom again. Wouldn't want to cross the anonymous barrier. 24.61.157.174

Please read WP:CIV. As outlined above: If something is trivial, it cannot be notable. If something is notable, it wouldn't be trivial. Hence, non-trivial and non-notable are basically synonymous. As far as the local paper goes, you are missing the point. It isn't only that it is a small local paper, it is that it is a small local paper writing about local people. How is that notable? You might have an argument if a small local paper from across the nation wrote about you because that might indicate the reach of your website, but that didn't happen.IrishGuy ^talk 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just said, If something is trivial, it is non-notable, right? If something is notable, it is non-trivial? Is anyone seeing what I'm getting at? Yet, you still assert that non-notable and non-trivial are "synonymous." Maybe it's me...maybe it's the word "synonymous" that you're having a problem with. And, if you're debating whether the "reach" of our website is substantial, I think you'll find that most people who come to our site are not from anywhere near New Enlgand, and I believe there's been proof of that already as well. 24.61.157.174 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What??!!?? I'm not sure if that is tautology or just plain butchering of the English language. Can you please rephrase so we can properly address your..umm...concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)

WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK IrishGuy ^talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I will remind you to read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before continuing the discourse in the manner that you have been. IrishGuy ^talk 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way that the previous statement was at all agressive. At worst it was "hard hitting," and I cannot fathom how it could possible be interpreted as an attack at you. 72.81.58.236 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! Next time I point out a mistake or "hole in the argument" I will try to be nicer about it. 24.61.157.174 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your resources are trivial and non-notable. The site doesn't meet WP:WEB. There is nothing mistaken about that. No matter how many sockpuppets and meatpuppets you bring to this AfD, it won't change the facts. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the unanonymous editors go unnoticed. I'm a serious Wikipedia editor, and I contend that much of the evidence presented is NOT trivial, and that the problem lies in IrishGuy's interpretation of WP:WEB. The arguments made thus far are not void, and in the final sum of things, the article is notable, and worthy of wikipedia. I do understand how wikipedia and notability works, and I believe WhatIsJoppa.com is important enough to keep because of its verified popularity. Any rebuttals to this statement is the opinion of another editor asserting that their interpretation of WP:WEB falsifies the notability of the article. I stand that my interpretation verifies the article's notability. --EndlessVince 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)

Popularity isn't a criteria for WP:WEB. Nor have you even proven that this is somehow immensely popular. The alexa rank is over a million [8] which doesn't signify overt popularity. The resources are small local papers about local people. That doesn't fit WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the people on this discussion board "sockpuppets," I find offensive. These are real people with real concerns. Your comments cut to a personal level. Maybe you should review the guidelines you so "diarrhea-ly" post. You have no proof that these folks here are "sockpuppets," besides that fact that you can't believe this article you have tried to prove "un-notable" is proving to be quite notable through its national and international support. 24.61.157.174

These are real people who are only here to attempt to sway the AfD in their direction. They have made no prior edits. They continue to only edit in this AfD and the article itself. No matter how often or how loudly you proclaim that this subject is notable, you have yet to provide any verification to back it up. IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets are a commonly used term on wikipedia, and not meant as offensive. But please don't attack the intended editor.--EndlessVince 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what sockpuppets are. I was offended by the accusation that real people on this discussion were being reduced to various "fronts" of the same person, based on nothing but opinion. And, it was never my intention to attack anyone. I was just pointing out some things 24.61.157.174 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may very well be. It really isn't relevant as anonymous editors with no edit history don't carry weight in AfDs. IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why continually comment and mention the use of sock/meat puppets? If we don't matter in the descision, then please don't complain about our comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

While your antics are largely irrelevant to the final decision, I will still address questions about notability guidelines. Please sign your posts. IrishGuy ^talk 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts is not mandatory; plus, IrishGuy will do it for you if you don't. Watch this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)

Signing posts is necessary in an AfD. IrishGuy ^talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if people FAMILIAR with the subject matter of a certain article want to defend and provide evidence for its notability, they have to first be members and then acquire a substantial "edit history" on this site in order for their arguments to carry any weight? That doesn't seem right for some reason. I have no intention of become a member of wikipedia, but if I knew of a certain article I liked was being deleted, I would hope that my voice would be heard, and that I would be able to help defend it. That's what these folks are doing, and I applaud them all. 24.61.157.174 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These folks are being rallied from your own message board. They have been sent here to sway the AfD by Joppa. They aren't simply concerned people who are familiar with the subject matter. They are members of your website and are acting out of personal interest. IrishGuy ^talk 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean they are not concerned supporters. I would hope that anyone with a command of the subject matter in this article would also be a member of our site. That doesn't make them any less valid. In fact, in a discussion about noteriety, I would think that it would help the case.24.61.157.174 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it most assuredly does mean they aren't simply concerned supporters. The exact wording by a member of Joppa was: We here at Joppa cannot let the time and hard work of you individuals that have been keeping it alive be for nothing! and then further went on to instruct your forum members to come here and sway the vote in your favor. May I bring to your attention Wikipedia's policy on Meatpuppetry wherein it states: It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. IrishGuy ^talk 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, when the topic of discussion is noteriety, it is only fitting, in order to prove noteriety, and extended (no local) importance of an article, it is only fitting that the voices of people from all over the world make it known that Joppa is not a "local phenomenon" as you are fond of calling it. Just because you've been overwhelmed with Joppa "noteriety" attracting so much attention to this page, doesn't mean you can call these folks "un-concerned." And, I never asked anyone to "vote." I understand this is not an issue to vote, so please don't put words in my mouth.24.61.157.174 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the fact that a post in a discussion forum is the catalyst for our reaction. I am not a zombie or puppet, but a thinking and logical human. I like Joppa and think the entry is useful; deleting it would be a shame. Joppa has met the criteria... and along with several real and interested parties that took time out of their day to put in their 2 cents in wikipedia, a regular editor agrees. Believe me, I would much rather be doing something else then defending a proven point to someone who ignores lines of argumentation based on an apparentv blind motivation bias. Heck, the argument of reading something, being stirred you into action, and having that motivation discredit you can be made for you reading the WP:WEP (or whatever) and then you springing into action to erase potential articles. Insane. Motivation and truth are not necessarily related. Also, attacking us with libelous slang such as "meatpuppet" is not very nice. Read your own damn attack page, you have the link but aparently are not familiar with the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)

Joppa has not met the criteria of WP:WEB and you were sent here from the forum. Whether you "resent" these facts or not is largely irrelevant. IrishGuy ^talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, there is no possible way you can justify breaking Wiki policy to sway an AfD. You sent forum members here. They aren't concerned users. They are puppets. And your argument doesn't even work. If your site is so notorious and popular (even though Alexa shows otherwise) then why were their only a small handfull of IP puppets? Your site just plain doesn't meet WP:WEB. Bringing forth more anonymous puppets won't alter that fact. IrishGuy ^talk 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call me a puppet. Never call me a puppet. Calling me a puppet is what I consider an offensive statement and a personal attack, there is no way you know why I'm here. Simply because someone asks me to do something isn't why I do it. I don't care if what Thom did is considered innapropriate in the world of Wikipedia. But don't tell me I'm doing some else's work. Please stop your aggressive statements and make your descision. 72.81.58.236 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear why you are here. I quick glance at your edit history shows that you have only edited in this AfD and exactly one edit in the Joppa article. Nowhere else. You first edited here after the message was posted on the forum directing people to come here and sway the AfD for Joppa. You have even commented on the Joppa forum about your conversations here on this AfD. IrishGuy ^talk 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You persist on calling me a meat puppet. Please stop. Read your own regulations. Just because I care about the significance of this article and not the deletion of every article on Wikipedia means nothing in relation to calling me a meat puppet. If I later want to comment on the situation after I have been involved in the debate doesn't mean anything at all except that I am telling people what's going on. People who care have a right to know. This is a public discussion. Simply because my voice carries little wheight doesn't mean you have the right to insult me as you have. 72.81.58.236 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're only edits are here and the Joppa article. You came here via the Joppa forum specifically to sway the AfD in Joppa's favor. That is the definition of meatpuppetry: a new Internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues. It isn't an attack, nor is it an offensive term. It is a label for certain kinds of behavior...the kind you are indulging in. IrishGuy ^talk 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a new Internet community member account." As I did not create a new account on Wikipedia, but post simply through my IP, I am not a meat puppet. Please read the regulation before quoting it at me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.58.236 (talk • contribs)

You may not be a registed member, but once you post you are a member. You are, in fact, a meatpuppet. You came here with one goal in mind under the direction of others. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please, if you clearly won't consider me anything else, for the love of god have me blocked. I might make a outragous claim that will sway your opinion! God forbid. 72.81.58.236 21:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an attack, but an honest observation You're impossible to reason with, and you seem hell bent on the truth of your opinion despite evidence to the contrary. When someone raises a valid point you always fall back on their sudden existence on wikipedia due to the crisis you have started, but do not address their valid arguments; this is the equivalent of an outstretched hand and yelling "What-evah." You can attack Joppa fans as meatheads, but their arguments are valid and more than enough evidence has been offered up to satisfy wikipdeia’s requirements for notoriety (local paper, boston globe, itunes, myspace, most popular return for Joppa despite other legitimate hits, et cetera, et cetera.) I’m sure you’re not a moron, but you sure come off as one. I'm sure you will label this as an attack, I assure you it is not meant as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)

Your "observation" clearly falls under WP:ATTACK. This doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media. It has not won a well-known and independent award. It has not had it's material distributed by a website which is completely independent of Joppa. IrishGuy ^talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's clear why you are here - but if I were to make an appropriate comment you'd link me to CIV and ATTACK again. GreatGatsby 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to keep things clear: how much you like is site is irrelevant. It needs to meet WP:WEB which this doesn't. IrishGuy ^talk 03:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was irrelevant and didn't apply to the previous comment at all. Stop repeating the same thing over and over, or it will be considered simple vandalism of this AfD. Simply because we pose arguments doesn't mean your response has to be the same again and again. Reply with your own arguments rather than restating what you had said, or we get nowhere. We can afterall read your previous posts. 72.81.58.236 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if someone is bullying the Joppa article on wikipedia, you don't think we have a right to speak up for what is being considered "un-notable" in the eyes of one, yes ONE, member of wikipedia. I honestly think that if you didn't have a personal grudge against what we're doing here, you'd have not bothered to respond--rather poorly--to any of these people defending the article. You would simply have made your case and allowed it to take its due course. What is the problem here? These people have obviously gone through a great length to prove to you that the article is notable. Yes, SOME are from our message board. That's only natural for people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the notability of the article. They would naturally be a part of our community--which is rather large and notable. The point is, if Joppa is so "un-notable" then why are so many people--from all over the globe--speaking out about it. They are NOT puppets. They have their own mind, and can choose whether or not to act in this matter. The hundreds of people that subscribe to our site have enjoyed the opportunity to use wikipedia as a means of learning some of the background and history of the Joppa group. To inform them that someone was threatening to take that away still doesn't seem like a breach of regulations. It was a means of informing them, AND if they had a means of defending it's KEEPING, then they have every right to use that means. Wikipedia makes this discussion open to anyone, which implies that anyone has a right to defend what they feel is just. Nowhere does it say "Members Only." That's the beauty of wikipedia. And, I'll say this again, seeing as it was ignored last time, quoted form wikipedia itself: Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. 24.61.157.174 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIV. Putting an article up for AfD isn't bullying the Joppa article. The problem is that as a member of Joppa, you shouldn't even be involved as that violates WP:VAIN. Another problem is that you willfully violated policy by trying to amass sockpuppets via your message forum. Yet another problem is that nobody has been able to illustrate any level of verifiable notability. And frankly, there aren't so many people speaking up for Joppa. There are two editors who helped write the article, you, and about two other anonymous people. That isn't exactly an army. Contrary to what you claim about the validity of your anonymous compatriots having validity, Wikipedia states: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. But at the end of the day, the facts still stand: your site doesn't meet WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "may be discounted" does not mean they ARE discounted. You are discounting them because they don't fit in with your argument. You are trying to prove noteriety. Their reasons are not misrepresented by the mere fact that they are here to prove noteriety, being the FAN BASE that has given Joppa its noteriety--as with ANYTHING that gains noteriety--IT STARTS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE IT. And, no, I have NOTHING to do with the creation of the wikipedia article. HOWEVER, I do have something to do with this discussion because you have been asking for proof of the group's accolades and acclaim, and myself, as well as Ben Watts, were asked to help provide this proof. And, my friend, you should count again: me and "two other anonymous people" is not accurate. You still have not responded to the quoted text from wikipedia's statement on guidelines.Please stop asking me to read WP:CIV I have yet to be "uncivil." I am merely responding to your arguments.24.61.157.174 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am discounting them because they are puppets sent here by the subject of the article to sway the AfD. No matter how often you use CAPS and continue to claim things, the fact is google garners less that 30 unique hits [9] and alexa puts your ranking over a million [10]. You have been quite uncivil as well as willfully breaking Wikipolicy and somehow having the audacity to continue to attempt to justify doing so. Here is some advice, the more you try to justify incorrect behavior, the less secure your footing is to defend the integrity of this article. Your site doesn't meet WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, NEVER give me advice. It's very insulting, and you may want to check out WP:CIV. Also, I would ask that you stop altering my posts. A number of people have complained about that here, and though I'm not as well-versed (or, do I care to be) in the wiki guidelines as yourself, I know that there must be something prohibiting that. A person on this board may choose or not choose to display their IP address, that's why they are given the option. If I am communicating a "link" to prove one side of the argument, it doesn't matter if I'm anonymous or a member. A fact is a fact. By forcibly changing people's posts to display their IP address, it is not only a breach of this board's guidelines, but it is also a privacy breach of internet practices--I know, I have friends in the computer crime unit out of Boston. So, if you want to spend your time here throwing guidelines (WHICH THIS ARTICLE MEETS) in our face, I will do the same to you if you publically display someone's IP address on this board without their consent. Thank you. And, stop making up facts like Google returning only 30 unique hits. You and I both know, that is false. That's NOT how to have a debate. 24.61.157.174 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you are uncivil, I will warn you about it. I have not altered your posts. I have added an unsigned template. Signing posts is part of the Wikietiquette for AfDs. If you don't want your IP shown, you can register for an account. Not signing your posts doesn't hide your IP address, it is in the edit history. Not signing your posts is just another way you willfully shirk off Wikipolicy. Yes, google has less than 30 unique hits. Check the link I provided. IrishGuy ^talk 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about google. I'll say that again. Just because you keep saying something won't make it true. And, just because you personally performed a limited search for Joppa, doesn't mean a thing. But, then again, you discredited google when the point was made that whatisjoppa.com was the number one hit on a google search for "Joppa," out of thousands of "Joppa" articles. It can't work for one argument, and not another. And, no, an IP address is as private as a telephone number. If someone chooses to display it on this board, it is their choice. If someone is on here to make a claim based on outside evidence, which they provide a link to, it doesn't matter who they are, because, like I said, a fact is a fact. What do the guidelines say about someone making an entry "deletion" personal, rather than operational? You obviously have some problem with the show itself, and because of you lack of subtance or reason to remove the article, it only proves my point. I am not being uncivil, I am simply resonding to arguments. 24.61.157.174 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually check? Look at the link. It shows less that 30 unique hits. While it may say there are a few thousand returns for "what is joppa", it hides all the redundant hits so less than 30 are actually shown. Please don't presume to tell me what my motivation is or isn't. I put an importance tag on the article. It was up for eight days with no importance being illustrated in the article. At that point I put it up for AfD. That is standard procedure. When a tag is ignored it goes to AfD. If this ever meets WP:WEB, which it currently doesn't, it may be recreated. IrishGuy ^talk 17:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as typical, you fail to resond to anything, but simply re-stated things which have been rebuked previously. Your search is ILL-FOUNDED on google. You searched for "what is joppa." First of all, as I mentioned, just searching for "Joppa" will get you more unique hits for us, as well as the TOP hit. Then, searching for "whatisjoppa" will get you even more. Then, searching for "fmcrew", which is our actual domain name, will get you even more. You can't search for "what is joppa." I'm amazed you even got the hits you did. "What is Joppa" is not the show. "Joppa" is the show. "Whatisjoppa" is the domain name we were forced to use beause "joppa.com" was taken--WHICH AGAIN, disproves the point that you were trying to make earlier about "Joppa" being an uncommon word, which it is not. But, I'm not exptecting you to actually respond to every argument that doesn't fit your side of the debate. You've failed to do so thus far. Proof has been supplied here over and over again as to the site notability. You continue to play with technicalities, which as I've posted from wikipedia's own literature, is NOT the way to approach deletions. ANOTHER point you have failed to respond to. You continue to bully this board with your empty points which have been discarded again and again--that tells me that you must have a personal problem with this website--which is fine--but you don't need to intrude on our, or our fans, creations. Your tag of "importance" was responded to and qualified, yet you still insisted on a deletion. That tells me you've got other motivations here. You see, I just responded to EVERY point you raised, which I've been doing all along. You should try that, and possibly make yourself more convincing. And, the MySpace feature is not trivial. It's an award, accolade, whatever you want to call it. But, it's a sign of notability. 24.61.157.174 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As typical? Again, please read WP:CIV. Searching for "joppa" proves nothing as you aren't the only use of that word. Searching for the name of the domain is a more accurate search, and that brings less than 30 unique hits...which is clearly not notable. You and your army of puppets have completely failed to illustrate notability. You have provided iTunes, which YOU put your own work on so it isn't independent of you and therefore doesn't count; you provided a local paper with a small local distribution which profiled local people, and that is trivial at best; you provided the claim that it is "popular" but google and alexa prove otherwise. I couldn't care less what you believe to be my motivation. I have never watched your work. Then again, I have never read War and Peace but that is eminently notable and therefore deserves and article. Less so Joppa. IrishGuy ^talk 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop telling me to read WP:CIV. I am not being uncivil, I am just responding to arguments. Which, again, you have failed to do, except with falsities. The google search--which is now apparently a "noteriety gauge" again--shows almost 800 hits when you search for our domain name. Which Google are you using? We did "submit" our podcast to iTunes--LIKE EVERYONE ELSE--and it was CHOSEN as a NOTABLE podcast, and featured on the iTunes hompage. This is out of hundreds and thousands of podcasts. Not to mention we were in the Top 50 podcasts after being on there for a week out of hundreds and thousands. Your OPINION of whether MySpace or certain periodicals are NON-NOTABLE, is just that--YOUR OPINION. It doesn't have any basis in fact. Just because you feel something to be un-notable as a publication because it fits with your personal attack on this site, doesn't make it so. And, you've again, unproved yourself--searching for Joppa proves nothing, because we are not the only use of that word--EXACTLY. But, we are the NUMBER ONE hit for that word out of...3 MILLION uses. Thanks for reminding me of that! And, don't worry, this is Thom again, though my IP is different, because I'm at work. Please start responding to arguments if you want to seem credible, not just repeating alrady discarded points 24.128.101.14 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop asking you to read WP:CIV when you cease to be uncivil. Making accusations about me and my motivation is egregiously uncivil. Constantly using terms like typically, personal attack, bullying and accusing me of using falsities is an attack. You aren't reading what I write. While google claims a certain amount of hits, those aren't all unique hits, which is what is important. When you go to the last page you will find that there are a fraction of the total hits which are unique. Google hides all the redundant hits and only shows the unique hits. With that, you have less than 30 hits. It isn't my opinion about MySpace. MySpace isn't allowed as an external link under WP:EL because it isn't a notable reference. When you are able to provide anything notable and verifiable, please let me know. Until that time, this doesn't meet WP:WEB. Please try to be more civil in the future. IrishGuy ^talk 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just said absolutely nothing with any substance. Your readings on google are incorrect. First you searched for the wrong criteria to build your argument, and now you're splitting hairs about unique vs. non-unique, because it fits your argument--when only a couple posts ago, you claimed that google was no basis for noteriety. Please decide what the basis of your argument is. We have already supplied an ample amount of evidence as to why this article is notable. Again, your opinion of what publications are notable is just your opinion. Something you have not denied. The criteria of not allowing MySpace references, is due to the fact that you can't claim noteriety by the number of visits you get on MySpace--that would be unreliable. We are not using that. We are using an accolade we received from MySpace, which, as a company, serves thousands of members--us being one. And, if you keep citing specific guidelines, I will again refer you to my earlier post quoting wikipedia's stance on deletions--something you, again, have not responded to. I am not being uncivil, I am only properly responding to articles. I advise you to do the same. 24.128.101.14 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, please read WP:CIV. Saying things such as You just said absolutely nothing with any substance is a blatant insult. Unique hits are what is important, NOT overall hits. Overall hits prove nothing. If you have a blog and you put a link to the site in 300 individual entries, that would make 300 hits...but only one unique hit. That is why only unique hits are looked at for an AfD. Google itself isn't a basis for notoriety. As a general rule during AfD's, when web traffic is used google is used in conjunction with alexa. Neither of those show any degree of notability on your part. I have responded to all of your posts. I have already clarified that the sentence you continue to quote has no bearing on this discussion. It is an ideal that rigid adherence to rules impedes progress...which is true. It isn't about allowing in website which meet no standard of WP:WEB. You continue to claim that you have provided evidence, yet every single time I rebut it, you avoid it completely. I have repeatedly pointed out that popularity isn't a criteria for WP:WEB. Additionally, you have completely failed to prove that this is somehow immensely popular. The alexa rank is over a million [11] which doesn't signify overt popularity. Your site has been up for 13 month. Your hit counter shows roughly 45,000 hits. That is about 3,000 hits a month...not notable or indicative of monster popularity. The resources given are small local papers with limited distribution about local people. That doesn't fit WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 19:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying You just said absolutely nothing with any substance is not an insult, it is a comment on the quality of your posts, and it makes me wonder just what it is you consider an insult. The information you had stated was a clear repetition of things you had said before. Simply because you had added a few words here and there is not substance. Please limit your repeated posts so we can constrain the size of this already large file.72.81.58.236 03:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's been a week. I don't foresee more evidence being presented. Please call the decision, and let it rest. --EndlessVince 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request - I would like to see some different long-standing editors opinions, I'm curious if they'd support deletion or keeping. In any case, this discussion has gone too long and should close one way or the other. - Quolnok 08:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Thought Here you go: Further noteriety — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.157.174 (talk • contribs)

That is hardly notoriety. IrishGuy ^talk 16:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an opinion of ONE poster here. Most people would call being picked to be featured out of thousands of pages on MySpace by the administration of the website to very VERY notable. But, thanks for your opinion.24.128.101.14 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace isn't considered media and therefore it doesn't assist in meeting WP:WEB. Additionally, it isn't an independent website showing your work because YOU put that work on MySpace. Hence, MySpace doesn't lend anything to your argument. IrishGuy ^talk 19:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about media? You were talking earlier about awards/accolades. Again, please decide what the basis of your argument it before sending a response. Again, what you fail to understand, or chose not to, is that WE did not put our work on the featured page on MySpace, it was CHOSEN. There is a difference there, if you want to hear it. But, if you've got a personal problem with out site, then I can understand the use of "blinders." 24.128.101.14 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the only way you could possibly try to use it. The criteria for awards state: The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. That isn't by any stretch a well-known award. Nor is it independent because it for a myspace profile which YOU added to myspace. Another criteria is: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. That doesn't work either because YOU put up the MySpace profile, so therefore it isn't independent of you. The only option left is media, which MySpace isn't. Beyond all of this, arguing for the inclusion of an article about you violates WP:VAIN. IrishGuy ^talk 19:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site has to be run independent of the creators, not the distributed material. "a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" not content that is independent of the creators.72.81.58.236 21:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as MySpace is a place for individuals (or groups) to create their own independent profiles and put forth their own material. As such, a MySpace profile doesn't count as independent of Joppa. Therefore, MySpace is not an independent entity distributing Joppa material. They wouldn't be distributing Joppa material had Joppa not put that material on MySpace. IrishGuy ^talk 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Godfather wasn't a movie it wouldn't have won any Oscars. I don't see your point.72.81.58.236 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. What does a film winning an Oscar have to do with a group creating a profile and then pointing to that profile as an independent source? IrishGuy ^talk 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. I'm saying that if the Godfather wasn't on the silver screen, but was simply a movie someone made, it wouldn't qualify for an Oscar, because it didn't appear in theaters. Joppa, without being a member of Myspace couldn't win the award it was presented. I hope that if you actually think about it for a second you will understand.72.81.58.236 00:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that your comparison doesn't work. The Joppa MySpace thing would be closer to a movie that was filmed for HBO winning an award granted by HBO. In any case, the highlight isn't an award and beyond that it isn't a well known and independent award as required by WP:WEB. It isn't a well known award because..well..it isn't an award. And it isn't independent because it is only for MySpace profiles of which Joppa created one. When you join an organization and then get an award from that organization, it isn't an independent award. IrishGuy ^talk 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For once I'll say it... fair enough.72.81.58.236 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, keep searching for new reasons. I wasn't brought here as a meat puppet, either, so I don't like the insinuation. You've already lost this battle, why keep fighting? And being the featured comedian on MySpace is a big deal, FYI. GreatGatsby 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't new reasons. They are the same criteria that this article has failed to meet since the beginning of this AfD. A MySpace feature meets exactly none of the criteria for WP:WEB as I outlined above. None. It isn't a recognized award. It isn't a media publication. It isn't distributing content independent of the creators. IrishGuy ^talk 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize the rules aren't set in stone right? By the logic you've used through this discussion, a website that had millions of hits but was never mentioned on another website/publication/etc shouldn't have a page. What? If it's measured on Alexa it gets included? There are much more important articles that require attention, run off there. Oh, and MySpace has something like a hundred million users, it's not an inconsequential site. To be highlighted on such a site is quite notable. GreatGatsby 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While MySpace may have many users, they only highlight profiles created on that site by those users and therefore it isn't independent. Nor is it a well known award. Actually, yes, high traffic isn't part of WP:WEB and therefore isn't particularly relevant. It is occasionally looked at when there is some notability to push it one way or the other, but I have never seen an AfD grant status to an article based solely on web traffic. In any case, whatisjoppa.com isn't a high traffic site so the point is moot. IrishGuy ^talk 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've missed all of this, I've actually been AWAY from a computer for a couple hours. Listen, the fact of the matter is this: You asked for proof, we've supplied it, and you continue to come back with empty, opinionated arguments. Just because what proves Joppa to be notable is, in your OPINIOIN, sources that are not notable, doesn't change the fact. It shows you've taken a personal interest in getting this page deleted, and that is against the Wiki guidelines. If you don't have any substantial evidence to unprove our well-documented sources of noteriety--BESIDES your opinion that these sources are NOT NOTABLE--then, please move on. You are in way over your head here. There are a number of registered users on this page who disagree with you, and in case you hadn't noticed, you are the ONLY one on this page who is optioning for deletion. I understand this isn't a vote, but you have to step back and ask yourself, "Am I just trying to win an argument here, or do I have substantial reasons for having this page deleted?" It's okay, we'll forgive you when this is all over. And, once again, I'm not being uncivil, I'm just trying to help you out. You can keep throwing the WP:CIV in my face all you want, but it really makes no difference to me. I'm not a registered user and don't plan to be, I didn't create this article on Joppa, and I have no opinion one way or another if you think I'm being uncivil. I'm much too busy. The fact is, we've proved noteriety. All we ask is that you disprove it without your personal opinions on whether or not MySpace or iTunes or major New England publications are notable. That's all. You can't just say, "I don't think they're notable." It doesn't work that way. That's not a rebuttal. Sorry. And, your views on MySpace are completely incorrect, and the Godfather comparison is right on. We didn't get the award from MySpace because our "profile" looked nice. We got it because of our original content on the page, which is just an extension of OUR OWN website. So, NO, it's not like HBO giving an award to and HBO movie. MySpace didn't produce our content. We did. And, if you want to split hairs, I refer again to the wikipedia literature, which you seem to have misinterpreted above. 24.61.157.174 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided ANY references that are verifiable and meet WP:WEB...no matter how many times you simply repeat your claim that you have. This doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media. It has not won a well-known and independent award. It has not had it's material distributed by a website which is completely independent of Joppa. The MySpace highlight isn't an award and beyond that it isn't a well known and independent award as required by WP:WEB. It isn't a well known award because..well..it isn't an award. And it isn't independent because it is only for MySpace profiles of which Joppa created one. When you join an organization and then get an award from that organization, it isn't an independent award. IrishGuy ^talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By the way, for those not completely familiar with Wikipedia deletions, IrishGuy isn't going to be the one making the one making the final decision. As a general rule, nominators don't do the actual deletion of articles. The AfD is just waiting for an independent administrator to see that the discussion is over to come by and finalize the outcome of the discussion. That outcome most likely being no consensus or some other variety of keep. --EndlessVince 07:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so IrishGuy does not have any real power? Good. I'm sure an unbiased source will see through his silly arguments and let the page exist. Joppa has been written about in local news media, an article is being written by national media, featured on itunes, and last but not least it has been touted on the #1 website in the world--a website completely unaffiliated with Joppa, mind you--as a featured comic sketch group. The notoriety is undisputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.161 (talk • contribs)

This doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media. It has not won a well-known and independent award. It has not had it's material distributed by a website which is completely independent of Joppa. IrishGuy ^talk 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided ANY real proof that this wiki does not meet WP:WEB no matter how many times you claim it doesn't. We've established that search engines are not a proper way to base the notability of Joppa. The rest are simply your interpritations of the regulations, which we disagree with. We have brought forth plenty of evidence to support WP:WEB you simply don't belive it. 72.81.58.236 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No proof at all...except for everything outlined above. Here it is again: It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media. It has not won a well-known and independent award. It has not had it's material distributed by a website which is completely independent of Joppa. I couldn't care less that anonymous puppets happen to disagree with the criteria for WP:WEB. The criteria still stands, and this article still fails to meet them. IrishGuy ^talk 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll say again, that is your opinion. Not proof. I'm glad you've told us you don't care at all about the arguments made here, it explains alot.72.81.58.236 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I don't care about the arguments made. What I did say, however, is that I couldn't care less is anonymous puppets disagree with Wiki policy. And no, the fact that this doesn't meet WP:WEB isn't opinion. Nobody has been able to illustrate anything even remotely resembling notability. It has won no well-known independent awards. It has not had multiple non-trivial notices in the media...it had exactly one mention in a local paper. That is neither non-trivial, nor is it multiple. It has not had it's content distributed by a website completely independent of Joppa. The only content on other site was put there by Joppa (MySpace, etc.). This article meets none of the criteria for WP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'LL say it again. Your opinion of whether or not these multiple sources of noteriety are notable does not matter. What matters is that everyone else on this discussion, INCLUDING registered member of wikipedia, agree that they are notable. I'll tell you ALSO again, that just because you keep repeating yourself, doesn't make it true.24.61.157.174 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. On the article talk page, you may see the editors even admit that they need more resources to fit WP:WEB...which were never supplied. It isn't opinion that a local paper about local people with a reach of 8,000 is trivial. It is also only one mention and the criteria outlines that multiple non-trivial notices in the media are required. You don't have those. Nor do you have a well-known award from an independent source. You have nothing but puppets who simply declare that this fits WP:WEB with no evidence at all. IrishGuy ^talk 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's wrong. Sorry. We've supplied multiple non-trivial notices, and we've also mentioned a number of awards received from independant sources. The fact that YOU don't think they're non-trivial or awards, is a personal problem between you and our website, which I'm still trying to figure out. Next. 24.128.101.14 23:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. You claim that there have been interviews with larger publications, but you have provided exactly zero verifiable evidence to back up this claim. All you have is a local newspaper with a circulation of 8,000. You haven't received any awards. You had a MySpace highlight (which is neither an award, nor is it independent of you since you created the profile). Please stop making personal attacks about my character, motivation, and/or intentions. IrishGuy ^talk 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct I was. We've explained the MySpace AWARD to you as well as the iTunes ACCOLADE. So, please, stop regurgitating inccorect observations. A correct observation would be that you've taken a personal interest in our group's demise, and that is against wikipedia guidelines. If your deletion request was based on actual proof, then there wouldn't be an issue here. But, since you've failed to provide that, and other registered members have, then I'm sorry, you have no argument besides your own opinion. And, I can't quite figure out what this "personal attack" business is all about. Anyone that's ready my posts can see that I've yet to "attack" you. Quite the opposite actually. This whole deletion process administered by yourself is a personal attack on us. Is it because we're not magicians?24.61.157.174 02:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace didn't give you an award. It isn't well-known, nor is it independent as they constantly highlight various profiles...of which YOU signed up for making it far from independent of you. Once more, please stop making personal attacks about my character, motivation, and/or intentions. IrishGuy ^talk 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack That's all we've been doing. Please read your own rules instead of pushing false satements about them onto us.72.81.58.236 03:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly making accusatory comments about my motivation and/or intentions is a personal attack. IrishGuy ^talk 03:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been the one atacking our motivation, jackass. Get it straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.75.196 (talk • contribs)

You are wildly in violation of WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy ^talk 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. What you're doing is not only pointless and consuming the amount of space this article takes up, but also aggrivating everyone else in this disscussion. (I'm asking not because it just violates WP:SIZEI'm asking for the sake of everyone in this AfD.) 72.81.58.236 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this doesn't violate WP:SIZE. That guideline states: In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems. With the advent of the section editing feature, and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles exist which are over 32 KB of total text. However, there are still good stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues, so article size is usually a consideration, though no longer a binding rule as it once was. As this is no longer a rule and instead quite clearly refers to the body of an article, it has nothing to do with an AfD. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just say MySpace isn't well-known?...that's what I thought. I think that about sums up the intelligence of all your arguments. Unless you respond with something original, and stop pointing fingers with your baseless "personal attack claims"--about the only thing you've been harping on the last few posts--then, I am done here. I've got more important things to do. Like run a notable comedy site. And don't get me wrong: I have not ONCE defended my own show. That is not my intention. If this were a discussion on whether or not Joppa was a good show, then I would have no right to respond, being the creator. This is a discussion on the rights of certain fans to publish an article on wikipedia--THAT is what I'm defending. Because it has to do with my show is a moot point. I would never tell someone they had to enjoy Joppa, because everyone is entitled their own opinion of art and other media. Much like IrishGuy's opinion that MySpace and iTunes are not popular establishments, or that certain newspapers are not-notable, yet others are. I respect those opinions of yours, but unfortunately, they don't really hold any ground in this discussion. If you were king, in order to have an article on wikipedia, we'd have to have made the front page of the New York Times. It's been a blast talking to you IG! Hope you've learned something. 24.61.157.174 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I didn't say MySpace wasn't well known. I said that the place where you were highlighted isn't a well known award nor is it indepedent of you...both criteria for WP:WEB. I think that about sums up the intelligence of all your arguments? Enough with the personal attacks. Like run a notable comedy site? Unfortunately, if you are referring to Joppa, is doesn't happen to fit the notability guidelines set forth inWP:WEB. IrishGuy ^talk 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Myspace and Joppa are independent from each other... Just because I can get a driver's license in California (e.g. create a myspace page) does not mean I am affiliated with the state of California. Myspace is the #1 site on the internet, and the decisions of it's editors are de facto notable. Actually, the decisions of the number 1 site on the internet have more authority than those on Wikipedia, including minor editors. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but until you actually read the WP:WEP and Attack page--and understand it--there is no point in responding to your posts until you can be reasonable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.75.196 (talk • contribs)

When you volunarily create a profile with a group you cease to be completely independent of them. IrishGuy ^talk 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The post above shows ignorance of the word independent and Wikipedia's idea behind receiving an independent award. The discussion is over. You lost. Go home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.159.133 (talk • contribs)

The above is highly un-civil and incorrect. MySpace doesn't give awards, hence Joppa couldn't have ever received one. Additionally, joining an organization precludes you from claiming independence of them. IrishGuy ^talk 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA, seriously? By that logic the Screen Actors Guild Awards would not meet the independence criteria. If you have a hand in picking yourself for the award or recognition, then you are not independent; the myspace, joppa situation does not violate the independence notion despite joppa having a self created page. To all readers: make note of IrishGuy making more ignorant arguments, having a high propensity for logical fallacies, and being an all around dick. Congrats, I will give you the dick award of the week, but because I am apparently a member of wikipedia along with you, do not try to claim notoriety based on this award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.83.114 (talk • contribs)

You are once again in violation of WP:ATTACK. Also, as noted on numerous occasions, MySpace doesn't give out awards, well-known or otherwise. IrishGuy ^talk 21:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The profile was simply on Myspace because Joppa wanted to have a myspace account. They didn't create it for the sole purpose of recieving the award. Thus, if we say that Joppa isn't independent of Myspace as you do, then the award, not the organization, is independent. The site has to recive an independent award, not recieve it from a independent organization.72.81.58.236 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that they didn't create it for the purpose of winning an award...because they didn't win an award. And yes, the award must be both well known (the award, not the group presenting it) and it must be independent as well as awarded by an independent entity. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which it is, in the opion of members and non-members on this board, except you. So, thanks again for your opinion. And, trying to double-talk around the fact that Joppa is not independant of myspace is just stupid. You sound stupid, whilst trying to sound like you're making an argument. Joppa is no more connected with myspace than any filmmaker that submits their work to a film festival. Think before you type. And, IF YOU'VE GOT NOTHING NEW TO SAY, move along please. 24.61.157.174 13:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you alter the signature and timestamp of the above comment as well as vote multiple times? [12] That is a clear violation of AfD policy. MySpace isn't a festival. That comparison makes no sense. IrishGuy ^talk 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know how to vote multiple times. What the hell are you talking about. See my below comment concerning your further incorrect oversation. Move on, please. 24.128.101.14 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment This article has now more than tripled the suggested size of articles on Wikipedia WP:SIZE may they be AfD or otherwise, hindering the possible responses from other users. Please wrap up this conversation. Regurgitating facts simply takes up space. Please only reply with original responses, as we can very well read old ones. 72.81.58.236 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement. As much as it may be tempting to shoot down another faulty, much repeated, rebuttal of our Irish Magician, it's just as well that we let him fizzle out, and move onto to bigger and better deletions--God knows he's got a bunch under his belt. There is no way he can win here today, you've proved it, and if we keep responding--I KNOW it's tempting--then this will keep going on. Let him fizzle. And, yes, the "Irish Magician" thing may have been a personal attack. So, there's not need to remind me. I am well aware. And, pointedly--don't give a shit.24.61.157.174

First off, I'm not a magician. Sencond, repeatedly claiming that you have made a point doesn't change the fact that your site completely fails WP:WEB. Third, you are willfully in violation of WP:ATTACK. IrishGuy ^talk 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, if someone knows they violated a rule, you don't have to tell them. It's pointless. Second, repeatedly claiming you have made a case against Joppa doesn't change the fact that you haven't. 72.81.58.236 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I have repeatedly pointed out and clarified, this doesn't meet WP:WEB.A local paper about local people with a reach of 8,000 is trivial. It is also only one mention and the criteria outlines that multiple non-trivial notices in the media are required. You don't have those. Nor do you have a well-known award from an independent source. Ignoring this doesn't mean the point wasn't made. It simply means you are ignoring it. IrishGuy ^talk 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I said I was done...but, it's SO hard not to respond to open stupidity. "I'm not a magician." Brillaint. Thank you for clearing that up. And, yes, you are wrong about our sources. We've proved it so many times it hurts my brain, but I do cherish your opinion. Now, I promise I'm done, unless you happen to supply us with another zinger I can't afford to let stand. And, what is this WP:ATTACK thing? You've never mentioned that before.24.128.101.14 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have proven nothing...you simply keep claiming that you have. You have a non-notable local paper. You have two websites where you added content yourself and are attempting to pretend they are awards. You have nothing that even remotely meets WP:WEB. If you did, you would have simply presented it instead of constantly claiming that you have it without providing any verifiable evidence that you do. IrishGuy ^talk 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, everyone, don't even bother. The article is in good hands. There's too many people on here (MEMBERS and otherwise) who know what's going on. In fact, of all the people here, there is...let me see....yes, ONE, who's a bit "confused." We know he's going to claim we're all sockpuppets because he can't stand defeat--but, anyone who has the means of checking, can certainly find out the truth--like I said, there are a number of wiki MEMBERS on here that have sided with KEEPING the article. Let's end it. There's nothing more to say. We've proved our sources, and he's just trying to lure us into further debate by repeating already settled arguments. IrishGuy's terrorism has gone on long enough. Goodbye. Seriously. Do NOT respond to him anymore.24.128.101.14 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for further providing evidence that all of the anonymous puppets are under your control. You have attempted to sway an AfD using WP:VAIN, WP:SOCK, and WP:ATTACK. You have not provided anything in the way of WP:WEB criteria, but instead have simply resorted to WP:SNOW. IrishGuy ^talk 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So nice of you to revise your post with even more attacks after I replied. IrishGuy ^talk 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I? I'm constantly revising my posts right after putting them up, because I notice spelling mistakes and things I forgot. I didn't even notice your response. You must have gotten that up there really quick! Good for you. Doesn't change anything, though.24.128.101.14

You revised your post twenty mintues after originally posting it. I am to believe that you didn't notice my reply? IrishGuy ^talk 21:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

51-43=8. That's called math. 24.128.101.14 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. [13]. Your signature even shows that it was made at 40 after, not 43. IrishGuy ^talk 21:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. That still doesn't equal 20 minutes. Not that it REALLY matters. Right now, it looks like your reaching for something to hold onto. I can understand what it must feel like to be in your position. I'm sorry. But, honestly, I don't need to revise my posts in order to make you look like an idiot. I've been doing pretty well so far. 24.61.157.174 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you have acheived is breaking various Wikipolicies and making your own position look increasingly more precarious. You have proven no degree of notability to save your vanity article, which I think you know, and that is why you have resorted to petty personal attacks. Also, I really enjoyed how you try to shrug off being horrible incorrect after being so smug about it. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Honestly, I wish you better luck on your next deletion. And, please don't take credit away from the people that wrote this article by claiming I had anything to do with it. We've covered this ground much too much. And, no, those weren't "petty" attacks. They were pretty accurate attacks. You can't bully everyone, my friend. People don't like that. Be sure to watch the show when you get a chance! See you around.24.61.157.174 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't bullied anyone. It is a bullying tactic to attempt to utilize armies of puppets for WP:SNOW, which is what you have done. Not I. I simply pointed out (repeatedly) the criteria of WP:WEB and how this site just plain doesn't meet it. You decided to start using petty personal attacks. IrishGuy ^talk 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Move along now.24.61.157.174 22:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you altering signatures and timestamps as well as vote stacking? That is a clear violation of AfD policy. IrishGuy ^talk 17:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? You altered your post so that it read "Delete," so I did the same with my own, adding "Keep." I also contacted the others and did the same, simply changing "Comment" to "Keep." Don't understand how this is a breach in policy. You're reaching again, buddy. Move on, please. 24.128.101.14 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. I added a comment. You altered existing comments with two different IP addresses. You effectively added two keep votes to already existing posts. You cannot vote multiple times, nor should you alter comments made by others. What you did breaches AfD policy. IrishGuy ^talk 21:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, unless there's new evidence to add, nothing new need be said. --EndlessVince 22:15, 8 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.