Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:38, 8 November 2006

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

2 November 2006

Brody Ruckus

I strongly feel that the Brody Ruckus page should be unprotected and restored - the Facebook group was an important marketing technique and social phenomenon that involved over 300,000 people and has been covered by major student newspapers - http://www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2006/11/03/News/threesome.Facebook.Group.Allegedly.A.Scam-2437716.shtml?norewrite200611030613&sourcedomain=www.studlife.com&mkey=1491036

How can Misplaced Pages cover incredibly obscure topics but ignore one that involved so many people?

• Endorse deletion, don't see anything that's changed since September, except the one student newspaper report which does not meet the "multiple non-trivial published works" criterion of WP:WEB. --Sam Blanning 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support redirect to Ruckus Network, but protect it and leave the history deleted as a softer {{deletedpage}} to prevent recreation of the marketing exercise. --Sam Blanning 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. NawlinWiki 19:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, per previous DRV. Naconkantari 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, redirect to Ruckus Network. The student newspaper report above is largely taken from here, a report on eSchool News Online, which seems legitimate. Basically, Ruckus Network made up the whole Brady Ruckus thing as a marketing exercise, kinda like Lonelygirl15. I will edit the Ruckus Network article, but the redirect should exist. NawlinWiki 17:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Update I've added the relevant section to Ruckus Network. NawlinWiki 18:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the last DRV. Wouldn't really care if it ends up getting redirected though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, allow redirect per NawlinWiki. Guy 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Teeterdil

Wow i cannot believe this got deleted. I play Teeterdil all the time STRONG OVERTURN! This is legit mang. Sportsguru9999 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Teeterdil

Amazing how, with its immense popularity, it has thus far managed to elude the all-encompassing gaze of Google. There are precisely two hits: Misplaced Pages and the creators' MySpace. Contributors include Teeterman (talk · contribs) and Teeterdilforlife (talk · contribs) Endorse deletion of this vanispamcruftisement unless and until we have proper sources. Guy 09:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, made-up nonsense. NawlinWiki 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn this is a real sport, i play it all the time. Having google hits is not important, many things on wikipedia don't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.115.196 (talk • contribs)

• Being Verifiable is not just important. It's required. Fan-1967 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as strongly as possible. A small group has been working in a very bad faith manner to try to keep coverage of this subject. The AfD was flooded with their presumed sockpuppets, and after its deletion one of them vandalized my user page. Any chance of blacklisting the word "teeterdil"...? -Elmer Clark 01:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Teeterdil is a real sport, and it seems you guys are threatened by it's existance. Don't worry, it won't bite. As for you Elmer Clark, please stop being disrespectful, you have no life.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.126.199 (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion. Can't find verifiability for it, sorry. --Angelo 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dustin Varpness

I created an article on the actor Dustin Varpness. The initial article was not submitted until I had referenced several outside sources including the IMDB. Another user added a STUB category while I continued to work on completing the article. I found the article was speedy deleted shortly after its creation. The reason for this was cited to me as WP:BIO but that decision was based on an assumption. The admin saw my username and believed me to be the subject of the article but I am actually a relative of Dustin. My name is Matthew Varpness and I decided to contribute the article on Dustin based on his appearance in several television shows on the Discovery Channel and the Disney Channel. In addition, I believe the article is beneficial because there are folks who wish to find out more about Dustin's career. I should know, I am the admin for Varpness.com and have received numerous emails from girls who saw Dustin on the Disney Channel and want me to forward their letters to him. In addition, I host some photos and information on his Discovery Channel program and have the internet search word referrals showing people visting my website based on their search for more information on him.

Anyway, I realize I can be long-worded so I'll post this undeletion request with a reminder that the reason for deletion was based on an incorrect assumtion and I'd like to have access to the source for the article so I can complete my contribution to Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --Thew Varpness 05:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. From the article: Dustin Varpness is a young actor who has contributed his talents to one Discovery Channel Program and at least one Disney Channel commercial. Sorry, I'm afraid we expect a bit more than that. We also don't much like articles written by members of the subject's family, because it's so hard to be properly neutral. Wait until he's in the next Spielberg movie, perhaps. Guy 09:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Guy, your logic has failed on all counts. First you quoted my article stating the accomplishments of Dustin. However, as I already stated the article was delete before I could complete the list. You say more is expected but neither allowed the time to add more nor stipulated what "more" means. Then you cite neutral as grounds for deletion based on my relation to Dustin. However, there is nothing in neutral that even mentions family members. You said it has to be neutral but I don't recall seeing the words "hunk" or "superstar" anywhere in the article I wrote. In addition, you assume I have a close relationship with my cousin. Sorry, but we grew up completely separated and I have only spoken to him twice in the last year. Finally, your suggestion that I wait until he is in a Spielberg movie is not only illogical but also insulting. There are thousands of actors found in the Misplaced Pages that have never even spoken to Steven Spielberg.

Lucky for all of us, I am an intelligent and reasonable person and recognize the spirit of Misplaced Pages and the reasons for deletion, even if they are inconsistent and required revision when the initial grounds were proven to be invalid. Consequently I formally withdraw my undeletion request with this warning: think carefully and logically about how you will respond to new articles added to Misplaced Pages. With the thousands of abusive users frequenting this encyclopedia, we can use all of the quality contributors as we can. Speedily deleting an article by a member who has only ever contributed quality information, without taking a moment to correspond with the author, is disappointing. I would expect a higher standard of conduct from an admin. Regardless, for whomever may read this, please keep my suggestions in mind. After all, projects like Citizendium are looking for educated professionals such as myself. Thank you for your time and good luck. --Thew Varpness 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Do feel free to cite the multiple non-trivial independent coverage of which your cousin has been primary source. Oh, and personal attacks on admins are really not a great way to get a deletion overturned. Guy 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mobile Weapon

There was an article created by a dedicated forum, http://en.wikipedia.org/Mobile_weapon , which gave very good information, context and content, about the free online game Mobile Weapon. It was not copyright infringing, as the creators of the game gave their permission, and it was not advertisement, as it only described the game and its series. The reason sited for its deletion was, "Site comes up when searching for Gundam," or something like that. However, we had a tag up at the top that said that if they were searching for Gundam, they should just click on the link provided, and be redirected. That deletion request was removed, but it was still deleted later on. Many members of the forum asked for its restoral. No one knows the exact date it was deleted, but it was in the last week or so. I had created one about this topic about a month ago, but it didn't have much on there, and was deleted. However, this topic was full of information, well made, and had no reason to delete it. If people want to search for Gundam, they should type "Gundam," not "Mobile Weapon." Could someone please restore this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N00b Master (talk • contribs)

• The article was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mobile Weapon. This was a valid AfD with a clear consensus, so I endorse the decision of the deleting admin. If you address the issue raised during the discussion, the lack of assertion of notability, you are free to recreate the article. But I'm not sure this game passes WP:WEB. Aecis 02:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse valid deletion debate and closure. The number of genuinely notable flash games is vanishingly small. Guy 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy Nobby Norton

This article was just created today and was undergoing edititing to reinforce its position in Misplaced Pages because of a previous hoax article by the same title. From memory (correct me if I'm wrong) the reason behind deletion was due to numerous editing in a small time period. Once again I would like to say that this was the article's first day in existence and needed this editing. It also needed editing due to the limited amount of information available on the subject. During the second half of today editing constantly reoccurred as I found new information. Another Misplaced Pages user was helpful enough to add to the information, so how can two people be wrong on such a topic? Everything in this article was fact and justified. It was also cohesive and did not have anything that even hinted to the article being a hoax. I would appreciate it if my hard work and Percy Norton were acknowledged by the speedy un-deletion of this article. Please allow this article to grow and develop and I can promise that I personally will keep it from factual corruption. Yours sincerely, Enknowed 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and protection. The only thing that came close to an assertion of notability in the article were unreferenced and unverifiable peacock terms. Also, Enknowed contradicts the article in this request. He speaks of "the limited amount of information available on the subject", while the article says that Norton "has won his place in his nation's ... heart." The lyrics to "his Classic Folk Song" don't return a single google hit. Neither do the critics mentioned in this article. The two users who worked on the latest incarnation of this article were possible single purpose accounts Enknowed (talk · contribs) and Silentbob4477 (talk · contribs). And the best part of this article? Percy Nobby Norton is a "19th century Australian folk artist" who "has devoted his time to re-developing his music career." Could we please add him to Category:Supercentenarians? Aecis 14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You should create the article in your own subpage (for example) User:Enknowed/Sanfbox, work on it there until it is complete and can stand scrutiny and not look like a hoax, and post it as an article. The whole point of the speedy deletion process is to delete articles speedily and not leave them lying around hoping that they will get better. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and protection. I no longer have any good faith in this whole affair now that I see it's been a long term problem. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion and keep protected This has surfaced before. Each occurrence has included nonsense claims, totally unverifiable, as well as less than pleasant behavior by some of the article editor(s?), as evidenced in the AFD discussion. Way too much time has already been wasted on this one. -- Fan-1967 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protection Deleting it had nothing to do with "numerous editing in a small time period" and everything to do with being a painfully obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close per above reasoning. More than enough time has been wasted on this nonsense. Guy 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn Shame on your close-minded power freaks. I have said it over and over, this is legitimate and I wouldn't waste my time if it wasn't. Why bother trying to pass a hoax under the up-turned noses of the Misplaced Pages elite? Hoaxes and genuine articles on unsung heroes are quickly and speedily deleted by the Wiki-admin. Show a compassion and humanity by allowing the Misplaced Pages users to expand your closed minds. This article shows promise and was sound from the word go when it was created on the 2nd. Enknowed 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This comment was removed by usre:Enknowed and then inexplicably restored by user:ArmadilloFromHell

• All articles must be Verifiable from Reliable Sources. If we can't verify it, we have no way of knowing what's legitimate. These rules are not optional. They're at the core of Misplaced Pages standards. Fan-1967 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete/protect Can you imagine how much good these people could do for the world if they would devote equal effort to something constructive as they have done to trying to maintain this hoax? NawlinWiki 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion and salting. Article, even in recreated form, completely fails the core policy of verifiability. There was nothing irregular about this closure and requestor has presented no evidence that this deletion was out of order, nor have they presented any Reliable Sources that this is actually verifiable. uncivil rhetoric doesn't help this situation at all.--Isotope23 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Holy shit. Holy shit. There's actually a genuine article buried in there. With... with actual verifiable reliable sources. I am stunned. I am also fucking annoyed that these goddamn shitbrains wasted our time for so long with such an idiotic mess when they could have so easily created this so long ago. As recently as two days ago, they were still creating nonsense idiocies about Percy's Myspace and Garageband and blah blah blah. This is a very subtle form of vandalism, and should earn its perpetratrors a smack in the kneecaps with a lead pipe. I endorse the re-creation of the article in its current form. DS 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You've been trolled. Please see your talk page, where I've broken it down for you link-by-link. Besides, even if we accept the rewritten article as 100% true (which is quite a stetch in itself considering the history) it would still fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC by an extremely wide margin ,as writer of one very very very obscure song (one Google hit for the title) and possibly co-writer of two very short stories in a pulp magazine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The World's 100 Most Powerful Women

Article was deleted without due process, citing a false claim of copyvio. If the list of the 100 most powerful women per se should not be included, it could have been removed from the article. The article text was original. However, I strongly doubt it constitutes a copyright violation to include the list of the most powerful women as the Forbes Magazine see it. For the people included, the Forbes Magazine also wrote more extensive reviews. Which person who were considered most powerful has public interest. If this is copyvio, our list of Nobel Prize laureates or recepients of various other prizes are copyvios as well. Childrenoftom 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion we have quite enough listcruft of our own without importing other people's. Guy 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Full disclosure - I deleted the article. It's a subjective list of people created by a copyrighted entity for their paying customers. It's Forbes magazine's intellectual property, and we have a history of deleting such items, like Guitar magazine's top 100 guitarists, etc. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Zoe. Naconkantari 17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Authored lists are copyrighted just like normal text. The list of Nobel laureates isn't an authored list, it's a non-creative listing of bare facts. ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Tourettes guy

This article has been deleted and protected. I believe it should not be protected and be put back up because it is a popular comedic website, and not an attack. Many articles on wikipedia are just like this one; they are comedic websites that happen to be about a man with tourettes. I will admit it is inappropriate and sort of mean to those with Tourettes, but i believe these type of websites should be allowed on wikipedia, it has its sources, and many people go on the site to watch the videos. There is even a petition to get it back on wikipedia. So please reconsider deleting and protecting this page. Thank you for your time. Sportsguru9999 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, at least two valid AfDs, no new evidence presented. --Sam Blanning 02:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have shown you my evidence, go to tourettes guy main page and look at the videos, they are used often and the website gets many hits. Please reconsider. Sportsguru9999 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion obvious consensus in both of the AFDs that Sam linked. If someone believes that they can write an article demonstrating notability according to our standards for webcomix and all other primarily web content using independent reliable sources, they are free to do so at a user subpage and propose that for consideration. In this case I also suggest getting feedback from the folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Webcomics before proposing it here. GRBerry 02:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn I dont think you understand how popular this site is, many people know about it and it is humorous. C'mon Sportsguru9999 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted, no new evidence, AFDs were clear. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You guys are smart... no new evidence? there is only one real piece of evidence! i have showed you that Tourettes Guy exists and it is prosperous. many people want this as a page and there is a petition for it. Please realize that this page is legit and needs to be on wikipedia Sportsguru9999 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If there is only one real piece of evidence (the main site), then there are no secondary sources to verify anything on it. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. --Wafulz 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Two valid AfDs, no new information. --Wafulz 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse again. No new evidence since previous AfDs and DRV. Guy 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Surprisingly, as one who deleted and protected at one stage, in fact I support restoration if only to stop us having to keep discussing it. The title should be Tourette's Guy. The site is tasteless and politically incorrect but those are not reasons to prevent us having an article. I would compare with Gay Nigger Association of America which has also been to AfD countless times but always with a "keep" or "no consensus" decision. And note the Alexa ranks: GNAA - 288 000 and Tourette's guy - 97 500. -- RHaworth 21:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per previous AfD, no evidence this passes WP:WEB either then or now. I doubt we'll ever have a web criterion based solely on Alexa rank (and I hope we never do, frankly), but if we did 97,000 wouldn't be even remotely close to high enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with the man two up from me. I don't understand when you say that the site needs to be verified. It is a website, it has funny videos that are very popular. There is no reason not to have this on wikipedia. The reasons you are giving are all the same and very weak. I hope this isn't a popular vote. I hope it is based on what makes the most sense. Sportsguru9999 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Here is some "verification" that this is significant: Petition for Tourette's Guy on Misplaced Pages As you can see it is a very important website, and many people want this as an article. Please realize that this is verifiable proof. Thank You! Sportsguru9999 01:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You might want to have a look at WP:RS. Internet petitions are about as far from reliable as you can get. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You might want to stop disrespecting me. I feel like you administrators are picking on me. This is completely legitamite and an internet petition is definetely a way to show verifiability. I have experienced wikipedia admins before, and you are showing me nothing different. Please respect me and tell me exactly why this article is insignificant. I do NOT want to hear there aren't enough sources when there are equally significant articles like Numa Numa, and Gay Nigger Association of America. Please know what you are saying before you speak. Sportsguru9999 03:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the Numa Numa thing is a pretty dumb article, but it is sourced from a New York Times article and probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon. As for GNAA, I agree with you that it isn't well sourced, and there have been numerous attempts to delete it. In any case, inclusion is not an indicator of notability (as specified by this essay). See also WP:SEWAGE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Tourette's guy is a tactless, tasteless website, but a popular cult hit among young internet surfers. Countless times at high school I've heard people say, "Oh yeah, you saw the latest Tourette's Guy?! Man that's so awesome!" Articles like the ones on PBJ Time, YTMND, etc. are the reasons why people come to this site: to find out about anything that has gained some noteworthiness, and that's _just_ what Tourette's Guy is. --Big Tex 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Amen Big Tex! My friends and I always are talking about the Tourette's Guy, Danny. He is just so funny. I know it is somewhat mean, but definetely deserves an article. I am glad you could bring that up. I find it noteworthy, as many people do. Sportsguru9999 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSFUNNY does not trump WP:V and WP:RS. Guy 10:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages articles are not prizes. No-one "deserves" them. --Sam Blanning 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you know what you are saying Samuel? We aren't saying they are prizes. We are saying that with all its popularity and notibility, that it should be an article. If we are going to have a serious debate about whether Tourettes Guy is legitamite, please do not use these sayings like prizes and making fun of what we say. It is like me saying, "Tourettes Guy is not a virus, you cannot "delete" it" or "Tourettes guy is not a prison, you cannot "protect" it" Please learn how to talk to people and respect people. See below how I can play this game. 75.41.246.102 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endose Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 17:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a good argument: This above AfD is not a coupon, it cannot be "valid" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.246.102 (talk • contribs)
• Endorse deletion - Per JzG above. Wickethewok 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: At this point in the discussion, anon user:75.41.246.102 moved the discussion to the 3 Nov page, apparently attempting to reset the clock on the discussion.
  • Keep Tourettes Guy, per these guys are ganging up on me because, along with most things on wikipedia, there are more against the article than for it. Think about it, a few people like me that go on wikipedia that believe Tourettes Guy is valid versus about 100,000 pompous admins who make sure deserving articles are thrown out, especially when a new account is arguing that has no credibility yet. If you want to pick on me, then fine, but listen to me. That is all I want. LISTEN to what i have said, and realize what you are doing. 75.41.246.102 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• undelete. Disgusting, offensive, or not, Alexa rank is indicative of deletion error. Don't know the contents of the deleted article (nor the page in question), so maybe wipe it down to a stub, if necessary. Big Tex has the right idea. Unfocused 02:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree, i will personally make a professional article if you overturn 75.41.50.11 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: If the article was poorly written then it should have just been tagged, but taste is not a valid reason to suppress anything. Given the fact that the “Tourette’s Guy” has been mentioned on a national television and has been featured in a television commercial by a major television network, proves that this more than just a minor Internet phenomenon. That fact that he offends some people is irrelevant to whether or not he warrants being listed on Misplaced Pages. You might as well delete the Ku Klux Klan page if this is the reasoning. paulisdead 03:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: The timestamp on this edit was inexplicably modified by anon user:58.106.73.120. System-generated timestamp restored.
• Keep Deleted No information not already considered presented. DRV is not a rerun of AfD. Eluchil404 09:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This deletion review is totally pointless, ridiculous, and certain to fail. --Lord Deskana (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: At this point in the discussion, anon user:75.18.174.88 moved the discussion, this time to the 4 Nov page. That edit was immediately reverted.
• Overturn: An article on the Tourettes Guy would meet the criteria set by Misplaced Pages:Notability (people).

  Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:

  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following

    “Danny” has had a petition to keep him on Misplaced Pages with over 2100 signatures on already and tourettesguy.com receives over 300,000 hits a month.

  • Name recognition

    He has been recently mentioned on the national talk show Late Night with Conan O'Brien.

  • Commercial endorsements

    He has appeared in the television commercial for the album The Always Open Mouth by metalcore band Fear Before the March of Flames.
    paulisdead 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC +10)

  • Note: At this point in the discussion, the moved text was restored to the original day's page, restoring the discussion-clock to the original start date.
  • Note: This comment was changed by anon user:58.106.72.205 and later changed again by anon user:58.106.77.153
• Overturn. paulisdead is right, and in addition it doesn't seem to be less notable than much other Internet phenomenons with an article on Misplaced Pages. --Angelo 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn paulisdead absolutely knows what he is doing. Those points that he made are very true. It is an Internet phenomenon indeed. Please let us end this deletion review immediately with an overturn of course. 75.30.246.107 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I absolutely agree. Paulisdead is right. All of what he said proves that Tourettes Guy is a valid wikipedia article. Sportsguru9999 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S Can somebody tell me how the Deletion Review works? How long will it take to get a verdict? Who will decide the verdict? Thanks to whoever will help. Sportsguru9999 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Discussion runs for a minimum of 5 days and often runs for 10. It will be decided by rough community consensus. Whether or not rough consensus has been achieved will be determined by one of the experienced admins who patrol this page and who are highly experienced with our deletion policies. Please be patient. Rossami (talk)
• Overturn I think all the above statements settle it. Conclude this already. I have seen enough. Overturn this. Widereceiver19 06:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion both AfDs were fine and no compelling new evidence presented here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems with either of the prior AFD discussions. Of the evidence presented here, I do not believe that it is sufficient to lead to a different result if we ran the AFD a third time. The references to criteria in WP:BIO are irrelevant since this is not a biography. Internet "phenomena" are held to a deliberately different standard. Rossami (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Overturn. I find process problems with both of the prior AFD discussions. Of the evidence presented here, I do believe that it is sufficient to lead to a different result if we ran the AFD a third time. The references to criteria in WP:BIO are relevant. Internet "phenomena" are held to a deliberately different standard which this article certainly measures up to. tuffsnake 6 November 2006
  • Note: This edit was actually made by anon user:66.160.12.222. However, looking at the signed-in user's only edit to Misplaced Pages, it is possible that this is the same person.
• Endorse closure. AfD is right. Blacken 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: Tasteless or not, many people come to Misplaced Pages for information on this website as they do for other comedic websites. Misplaced Pages is not here to judge, but to provide unbiased information. The online petition is run by a reputible online petition service, and has been 'signed' over 2,500 times in a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.75.67 (talk • contribs)
  • In the same edit, this anon user also modified several lines of the comment by paulisdead. (Those changes have been reverted.)
• Note to closing admin: Please check the edit history of this article. Lots of anons are editing each other's comments and !voting individually, making me think that the same person is voting multiple times. Reads like sockpuppetry, as well. And User:66.160.12.222 is signing with the name of a User who only has one edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Ok I signed in this time and I stand by what I said above, I think this article merits a spot on wikipedia User:Tuffsnake
• Note to closing admin: Please realize that the supporters of overturning this are the minority in this argument. While we are the minority, we present a better argument. I do not think it matters about numbers of people who vote. The administrators love shooting down articles, and that is why so many have flocked here to agree with each other and ruin the lives of Danny's supporters. The facts are that Danny is a popular web character, like the Numa Numa Guy, and LeeRoy Jenkins etc. Danny has been mentioned on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, and has a commercial for a band. The site gets many visitors, so it is very notable. So I ask you, will you agree with a bunch of mockingbirds that continue to say the AfD is verifiable. That is pretty much their only argument. Hmmmmmm. Thanks for your time. Sportsguru9999 05:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please stay cool, there's no justifying reason for attacking anybody in this discussion. In my opinion, there is actually a concrete difference here with respect to the two previous AfDs, and today a third one would likely fail. But please stop attacking other users: it's absolutely untrue that admins loves to "shoot down articles", it sounds kind of bias towards them. They're users too, by the way, don't forget that. --Angelo 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I am not attacking anybody! I am just making a valid point. Try reading the whole thing of what I said. You will be shocked to see that it is all true! Whoa! Is a new user trying to defy an admin and voice his opinion? Get off my back. Widereceiver19 02:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the comment by Sportsguru999 above mine. Was it yours? --Angelo 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No I am defending Sportsguru beacause he is right. Sorry for the misunderstanding Widereceiver19 03:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)