- 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, as no substantial case for notability - i.e. one showing at the very least non-trivial coverage by multiple third-party reliable sources - has been made to counter the nomination for deletion. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not assert its notability as per WP:WEB. There are no sources to back up its claims and suggest that it has had any impact outside of its own world.
The previous listing was recent and 'no consensus': see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor. However, following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, I feel that Youtrue/Rough's votes should be considered as unintentional meatpuppeteering. Adding that one of the other 'keep' voters has only two wikipedia contributions, and we have a case of a clear need for relisting. --Robdurbar 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep is notable in academic spheres and page should not make a case for its own notability. it just needs cites and cleanup. This is not a vote, this is a discussion. The case was that you had no consensus before, and you relisted? bad mojo dude. --Buridan 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- note, my keep vote is on its notability, not in regards to former constitution of consensus, the consensus was a critique of the relisting, which it should not have been.--Buridan 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has 54,100 Ghits, so I doubt the claim that no sources exist. The article may not cite any sources, but that is only grouds for improvement, not deletion. I also agree that it is bad form to relist for deletion, especially after such a short time. dryguy 19:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just want to make sure that you guys had read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com and the concerns brought up there? That notes some serious flaws in the original AfD for this which could have lead to a far different conclusion for the closing admin. --Robdurbar 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that, it seems moot to the question of notability. --Buridan 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I belive the deletion review process can be used for articles that are thought to have been inappropriately kept. I think that is the the right way to handle a situation like this. Otherwise, we wind up with people periodically re-nominating any result they don't like until the article finally gets deleted. dryguy 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that, it seems moot to the question of notability. --Buridan 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just want to make sure that you guys had read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com and the concerns brought up there? That notes some serious flaws in the original AfD for this which could have lead to a far different conclusion for the closing admin. --Robdurbar 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Delete Most of these ghits appear to be the magazine itself and its astroturfing. Doubtless many more are uses of the phrase, like half of these seven scholar.google.com hits. (If the article is edited before closure to demonstrate mentions per WP:WEB, make this abstain) Septentrionalis 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I run your wikipedia-free search, I get 59,000 ghits today. When I run your google.scholar search, the second hit appears to be a published work independent of the The Irascible Professor. Browsing for a few seconds through the 59,000 ghits I also found another independent cite. I'd say WP:WEB is easily satisfiable. dryguy 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is obvious from the list of articles and their authors that the publication is notable.DGG 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Seems to be notable enough. --Wizardman 02:11, 9 December 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.
- KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]