Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-Mockery

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 no consensus, with or without sock/meatpuppetry. Luna Santin 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-Mockery

Website which doesn't seem like it meets WP:RS/WP:V. No reliable sources mentioned in the article, none found either. Delete unless sources are found. Wickethewok 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep How is anything apart from the site history in the article any less verifiable than anything found on any entry at Category:Comedy_websites? Is the suggestion credible that Wikipedia editor Wikethewok is targeting the entry for this specific humor website because of its satire of electronic music fans (ravers)? 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Brian W. Goosen

http://www.answers.com/topic/i-mockery, http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=i-mockery.com, http://www.richmond.com/news/output.aspx?Article_ID=3684718&Vertical_ID=155&tier=20&position=2

  • So far, the only non-trivial thing is the Richmond thing, the rest are just blogs or links to the website. I'd like the opinions of some editors who don't frequent the site for an unbiased perspective. Wickethewok 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immature rantings aside, "Can't verify information in article" is listed directly under "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed". I would suggest that some consideration be given as to the nature of the site and it's article. The article is a description of the site itself, it doesn't have any claims to be verified. Furthermore, while the sources link to the site, there are quite a few of them. True, it is hazy as to whether or not it follows guidelines, but the authors obviously made an effort to do so. It's difficult to provide ironclad third party sources for a site like I-Mockery, but those who contributed to the article did their best to back up the descriptions. Since it is obviously not some just quick self promotion for some twelve-year old's personal blog, I would argue that some leeway should be given. Beyond that, you agree that the Richmond link is reliable. The reason you gave for deletion was that "No reliable sources mentioned in the article, none found either. Delete unless sources are found." Well, though it is only one reliable source, isn't that enough? As previously stated, I would argue that some consideration be given.

  • Neutral but I'd like to point out that the I-Mockery forum is asking people to come and "save the Wikipedia article". [1] That might explain the rapidly growing number of votes from anonymous editors. Pascal.Tesson 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that relevent at all?
  • What are you trying to imply? I-Mockery is a site with over 100,000 unique views daily, it's not as if a handful of people are trying to sabotage Wikipedia's system for all the prestiege having a Wiki supposedly confers. This page was submitted by persons not affiliated with I-Mockery or its staff and is sourced from the information available through the autobiography on the site itself and apparently some experience on the message boards. It serves as a reference for anyone interested in the history of I-Mockery, and it is undeniably a useful document for someone seeking that information; It clearly falls within the mission and purpose of Wikipedia at large. Trying to remove this information serves no purpose other than to fulfill this administrator's personal agenda, whatever it may be, and I feel he represents Wikipedia poorly in doing so.
  • Strong Keep: I-Mockery is a very prominent humor site and its page on Wikipedia isn't there to merely promote it with free advertising. You might as well flag the Something Awful page for deletion too.
  • What's wrong with self-references anyway? On the Something Awful entry, 11 out of 17 references go back to somethingawful.com itself. How else is a website like this supposed to GET references?

So what's the verdict so far?

  • Vandalizing userpages is not the way to go guys. You're only hurting your own cause. Yeah, you, [IP ADDRESS REMOVED, FOR SERIOUS]. A simple discussion is all that is required. You're welcome to nominate whatever other articles you see fit for deletion (including ones I have worked on, though they are easily sourceable/verifiable), but that is unrelated to the matter at hand. Wickethewok 17:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that so far, you've yet to answer any questions? It's hard to have a discussion with someone who won't comply.

  • You still need one more reliable source. So far you have the Richmond one, which is good. But you still need a second as WP:WEB specifies "multiple" secondary sources. What further questions do you have? Wickethewok 18:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WEB is the relevant guideline. It says in relevant part "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a 'Reference' or 'External link' section." We are often more generous at AFD and keep if the relevant proof appears here. The only independent reliable source produced thus far about the site is the Richmond.com source first mentioned by Caknuck. The article has no References section, so it can't meet WP:WEB based on the references. I checked the external links, and none of them are independent reliable sources. I can't see any criteria of WP:WEB that the article meets, so deletion is the answer that accords with our policies and guidelines. GRBerry 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: WP:WEB states that the article "must" meet at least one the criteria (1 to 3) for notable content on the web. I-Mockery meets at least 1 and 3. The WP:WEB does not clearly state that an article must have more than one source - this seems to be an interpretation of it. As stated above, the policing of Wikipedia policy is extremely inconsistent. There are several other humour related websites (SA, Newgrounds, etc.) that do not meet your specific guidelines, nor do your own articles. I would like to know how to seek mediation to resolve this, as I do not believe Wickethewok is a reliable source.
  • I don't see how it meets criteria #1 (multiple reliable non-trivial sources) or criteria #2 (no awards) or criteria #3 (distributed via a well-known independent online newspaper or magazine). The "multiple" part comes from criteria #1. Also, just because there might be other content on Wikipedia that should be removed, doesn't necessitate this being kept either. I recommend you bring up your issues with Newgrounds and SomethingAwful on the appropriate talk pages. Wickethewok 19:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ridiculous. The site itself has been mentioned in actual magazines. The man who runs the site has appeared on Food Network and Comedy Central. I-Mockery isn't just some stupid little kid's website.
  • Keep: In addition to the other secondary sources given, there is yet another source in the Times-Herald of Port Huron, MI.

"i-mockery")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no Times-Herald (search for "i-mockery" when visiting that URL) The two newspapers sources, the television credits on the Food Network and others, the MSNBC.com source, the reference in Maxim magazine, the large volume of links to other websites, as well as the primary source of the site itself seem to close this issue of "no sources". This whole issue seems trivial at best.

  • I-Mockery.com's "Pixel Pals" is currently pending acceptance at Comic Alert.

Ref: http://www.comicalert.com/comics/9546-pixel-pals/

  • I-mockery's April Fools joke was changing their layout to fit that of Newgrounds' for the day. Here is one example of an online news article having commented on this stunt, along with other humor site's jokes for the day

Ref: http://www.theshadowsun.net/collection/view/72


  • Wicketthewok, how can you call so many sources "trivial" - that sounds more like your own opinion rather than a fact. Confirmed appearances on television shows via IMDB and a video clip of one of the appearances, scanned pages from professional magazines, audio clips from professional radio show interviews, proof of work on other professional web sites such as Cracked Magazine. What more could you possibly need? The people here have gone above and beyond making a big effort to comply with Wikipedia and to make the I-Mockery entry all the better, and you're shooting each one of them down with complete disregard, even describing them as "the rest are just blogs or links to the web site" - how is an audio clip from a radio station interview a blog or a link to the web site, how is an interview on the Sacramento Bee merely a blog, etc. etc. I'm not attacking you personally, but it appears as though you are the one "hurting your own cause" when you say things like this to people who are just trying to work this situation out.


  • Strong Keep: References section added with links to print material Maxim Magazine and Yahoo! Internet Life, as well as clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
  • Most of these new links seem to be about the site's creator rather than the website. Maybe there should be an article about Barr instead and a couple sentences from this merged into that instead. The VH-1 blurb doesn't mention the website at all and the Richmond piece is more centered on him. There seems to be more on him than on the website. What do ya folks think of that idea instead of other proposals? Wickethewok 20:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger Barr is the owner of the site and most of the ideas for the website come directly from him, so that's a good point wikithewok. However, changing the entry to Roger Barr would be more about Roger Barr than the material on the webpage(which is what people are interested). ON top of that it's hard to have an interview with an Internet site appear in a magazine, or to have an internet site appear on live television(and keep it interesting). The site is the material Roger Barr (and others) produces, and the material is what people are interested in. Nobody cares about Roger Barr. In this sense the wikipedia details some of the available material on the website, and the referances show that material appearing on life television. I think this wikipedia entry would be worthless if it was just about Roger Barr. If you want "referances" to things about i-mockery look at the "External links" section which actually links to I-mockery and the material on the site. If there was link/referance to the "humorous articles" themselves how would that stand?
  • "Nobody cares about Roger Barr" - Apparently the above sources you mentioned do. This includes the Richmond article, of which he is the primary subject, not the website. The TV appearances seem to be based on the fact that he rather enjoys Boo berry, rather than runs a humor website. Wickethewok 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the TV appearances also mention the fact that he runs a Boo Berry website, which is an offshoot of I-Mockery.com, which DO make it relevant to I-Mockery as well as Roger Barr.
  • It's pretty hard to interview a website. HELLO MR. WEBSITE HOW ARE YOU CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT YOUR MATERIAL MR. COMPUTER? *no response* Notice websites require some type of Human being behind them to create/manage them(kind of like this website eh), presto, Roger Barr is that person and he was the I-mockery "representative". He also wrote the material on the website, so he was on these shows representing the material on i-mockery. This is sort of like interviewing a popular musician, you don't interview their music you interview THEM, but the material of interest, that which made them popular in itself, is the music and ideas-- which they themselves are representing by being interviewed. Isn't the purpose of these referances to show that I-mockery is a popular internet attraction? Also have you read anything on I-mockery yet? You might notice that most of the articles written are written from a personal perspective, which is another reason why it was about "Him" and not the "Website", because the material on the website is often written from a personal perspective. Also, Roger Barr wouldn't be "Popular" enough to appear on television without the popularity of his website.
  • Two more sources, this time from Yahoo Internet Life and Maxim.
http://www.i-mockery.net/media/yahoo-internet-life-2001.jpg (Martin Yan: Homocidal Chef)
http://www.i-mockery.net/media/maxim-feb-2001.jpg (Boo Berry)
I would also like to know to whom we can appeal if Wickethewok continues this bizarre crusade. ChojinSix 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is dangerous.
  • It may help if we knew which facets of the article needed to be verified.
  • Here's another valid reference for I-Mockery, an interview about the site on West & Wylder 95.5 WTVY FM, which covers a lot of the site's history and is definitely about the site more than about Barr.
http://www.i-mockery.com/rog-radio.mp3
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.