Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunching Shuttlecocks

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct humor website that does not claim any recognition or awards, and it is now impossible to verify traffic --Ruby 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as the notability is almost impossible to gauge making it unverifiable. Bobby1011 03:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Frühstücksdienst 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable humor site. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was exceptionally notable in its time. Although some digging needs to be done to provide verification of this. Proto||type 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real humour site, I used to visit this a lot. JIP | Talk 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this was notable when it was around. Consider seeing if anything is preserved at Internet Archive. Thryduulf 12:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there's lots. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.brunching.com indeed has a bunch of stuff. Good call Thryduulf. Proto||type 13:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to use the Internet Archive, the Brunching site itself still has full archives. DenisMoskowitz 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable humour site, with notable offshoots. Possibly merge offshoots into this page, though. Percy Snoodle 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable site. DenisMoskowitz 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending a complete top-to-bottom rewrite. I agree it's a piece of notable net history, but the article as it stands is in essence a List of old Brunching Shuttlecocks section names with some spamvertising tossed in at the bottom. --Aaron 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest be added? I added a note about the publication of the Book of Ratings. I could put in some claims about "everybody knew about this site back in the day" but that's not very verifiable. (Though the fact that 3 years after closing it's still the top Google hit for both "brunching" and "shuttlecocks" is some indication of how heavily it has been linked to.) DenisMoskowitz 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, undoubtably notable. I still remember half the lyrics to the Bjork song. — ciphergoth 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is not impossible to verify traffic. See [1], which compares traffic of Brunching Shuttlecocks with Modern Humorist, a humor site of similar popularity that has a Wikipedia article. Nohat 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Highly notable site. Random House made part of it into a book[2]. I'd call that recognition.--Notmydesk 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, it spawned a message board that is still very active. — User:Serendipity 05:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Leading humor site in its day and still available as archive even if not being updated. If this article did not exist, articles on the current careers of Lore Fitzgerald Sjöberg and Dave Nielsen would have to reproduce the same material. Sergeirichard 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it might be gone now but in its day was definitely notable. Deserves an encyclopedia entry. -Big Smooth 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, yup, as so many others here say, this site clearly was famous and influential. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: IIRC, I originally found out about the website after reading about it in Newsweek. Ardric47 01:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ciphergoth. Ooh Bjork, Bjork.... ♫ squell 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The site is still readable (and enjoyable, in my pov); it spawned other sites like bookofratings.com. To delete it because it isn't being added to is like deleting the article on Shakespeare because he isn't writing any new plays. Stev0 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: one of the absolute top comedy sites of its time. And since the current anti-website crusaders like to pummel sites with Alexa, note that it's still in the top 100,000 today, three years after it stopped updating. Zompist 21:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per notmydesk. Or were you created from butter and cork? · rodii · 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It was very noteworthy at the time, and the entire archives are still available, though the search engine seems to be broken. Maverick 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep though I'm biased, Lore being a friend of a friend. Georgewilliamherbert 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I'm biased as well. I gave Lore a ride to an ATM once. --Elkman 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fairly notable when it was active, IIRC. Herostratus 05:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hbackman 03:53, 28 February 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.