Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Man Murray (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Notability concerns by delete commenters are not refuted by those in favor of keep. Sources provided are generally trivial, tangential, or otherwise not substantial enough to grant notability. lifebaka++ 19:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Murray

edit
AfDs for this article:
Old Man Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy renomination, since previous AFD was closed as if it were a PROD and then challenged. Article appears to fail WP:WEB. Current sourcing consists of no reliable sources, and a whole bunch of primary sources, forum threads, and people's forum profiles. A search online and on Highbeam Research yielded nothing in the way of non-trivial reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability to retain the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:WEB for lack of significant (or pretty much any) coverage in reliable third-party sites. Of the nine references provided in the article, five are to Old Man Murray itself, and the others are to blogs (and even they do not provide "significant" coverage, just mentions). Google News Archive finds a few passing mentions in Wired Magazine, otherwise nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Bottom line, yes. It's the standard we have here, for lack of a better. It doesn't have to be the news archive, it can be Google Books or other search engines. Or it can be reliable sources not found in any of those places, but cited in the article. Currently there aren't any. I did my best to find what Wikipedia requires, which is significant coverage by independent reliable sources, before I !voted "delete". Your numerous comments here have done nothing so far to change my mind; in fact you would change more minds if you would keep your comments less hostile. You obviously feel very strongly about this site, but if you want to keep its page on Wikipedia you simply have to come up with reliable sources to support your insistence that it is notable by Wikipedia's definition. If there are no such sources, then the article can't stay here, no matter how strongly you and your friends feel about it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I don't even feel strongly about the site, it just kind of amazes me to see people do a few no effort web searches and declare that they could find no references to the website, then to see those people ignore references when presented with them. The only complaint presented with anything anyone not from wikipedia has said is that they're not from wikipedia. Worm4Real (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obvious grudge-delete by SchuminWeb, who has a long history with the administrator of the site. The site is *clearly* notable, and it's laughable to say it fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb is just butthurt because the administrator ran another site that made fun of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouffleofPain (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC) {NOTE: User:SouffleofPain has made no other edits except this comment, plus a series of non-edit actions whose only intent was to "cleverly" insult another editor in a way that can only be seen by looking at SouffleofPain's contribution history.) — souffleofpain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • How does it matter who the nominator is? Wikipedia operates based on policies that require reliable sources, and does not operate based on personalities. You claim that the site is "clearly notable", but provide no evidence via reliable sources to back up your claim. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the nominator didn't matter then wikipedia would be a great place for people with axes to grind to snipe at people or sites they hate and protect themselves in a bubble of insular language ... oh wait Worm4Real (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Worm4Real (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines are quite clear regarding editors with a COI participating in deletion discussions. That applies for all the SPA votes here, as well as to the nominator if there's evidence pointing to a COI. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Amatulic. Your information is much appreciated. According to this , the (quite understandable; many of the Portal of Evil posters were animals) WP:COI on the part of the nominator would come into play with this: "If your edits violate neutral point of view, they can be reverted. Although other editors are not allowed to reveal your identity, they may come to understand who you are, and may realize that you are gaming the system." (The third point regarding companies is not appropriate to the discussion here.) IceCreamJonsey (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to point out explicitly that SchuminWeb deleted the Portal of Evil article a few days before coming here and deleting this one. Both are sites that were run by Chet Faliszek, and both are COIs. Schumin is lashing out the only way he knows how...via wiki! Here is the COI I speak of Entropy Stew (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Entropy Stew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
          • Let the record show that the two articles were initially nominated for deletion within twelve minutes of each other, and that I did not delete either page. See timestamps on Portal of Evil's nomination and Old Man Murray's first nomination (which ended in a soft delete). Additionally, considering you all have expended a lot of effort on character assassination and rounding up the meatpuppets to comment on this AFD while the article remains unchanged, I am left to conclude that you all have nothing of actual substance to bring to the table. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Deleting a notable site due to lack of notability: constructive. Addressing the source of that deletion by providing evidence to the contrary and pointing out what I feel to be a very strong COI: not actual substance. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. I expect the references cited here will be folded into the article when the threat of deletion has passed. Entropy Stew (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: This AFD is being discussed here, which appears to be the source of all the single-purpose-account !votes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does it matter that it's being discussed on a site other than Wikipedia? These are people who obviously have a big interest in the Old Man Murray website, so they are in fact very suitable voices of support. — 173.0.2.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep In Half-Life 2: Raising The Bar, a making-of documentary, Gabe Newell mentions that there was such a worry about the crate cliché (in reference to Old Man Murray's famous "start-to-crate" game rating system) that eventually the team gave up and made a crate one of the first things the player sees and manipulates, figuring that this "was the Old Man Murray equivalent of throwing yourself to the mercy of the court". Gabe Newell is arguably the biggest figure in video game development today. — 173.0.2.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep ~PONCY FONT ON~ Portal 2 is about three weeks away from being the best-selling game of 2011, BOY would it be nice if there were a page on some kind of electric encyclopedia that discussed the designers' other work, seeing how playing the original is like playing a game of OMM. (Portal and its design team currently have hundreds of thousands of hits on Google and Bing, but admittedly just 52 on Highbeam Research.) References to OMM are also included in games as per the original article, and it is completely impossible to discuss games journalism in the 90s without mentioning the site. I would also submit that the page would have lived forever in time if this particular nominator didn't target it, as evidenced by the fact that the page lived forever up until this particular nominator nominated it. I know I just turned into Doctor Who there, which is not my intent, because his edits are unverifiable. >:(

I don't know how to turn poncy font off. Sorry. But in my defense, you guys probably deleted that page, too. IceCreamJonsey (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • All pages that are deleted would have lived forever if a particular nominator didn't target it, and all pages live forever until the nominator nominates them for deletion. So your personal attack falls flat. Otherwise, no one has produced any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources, and so bloviate about it all you want, but you have no evidence, and notability is not inherited, as the game Portal's notability does not somehow automatically confer notability on this subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with the jerks and single-purpose accounts. OMM was truly notable and influential in its day - didn't they host Seanbaby for a while, for one thing? - and this is a definite keep. DS (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the sourcing to back up this notability claim? As it stands, I did all of my research in determining whether reliable sources exist, and they simply do not exist. One should also not forget that notability is not inherited, i.e. just because one once hosted a notable site does not make said former host automatically notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
God, no wonder you got a baccalaureate in public administration. You're as banal and thick headed as any government bureaucrat I've ever come across. Kade (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you saying that you agree that ES and 173's keep votes ARE grounded in policy? If they abide with policy and prove notability in a manner that you can't contest or diminish then aren't any delete votes saying this article is WP:Not_notable sort of invalid? Worm4Real (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many renominations is Schumin allowed before he isn't allowed to touch this article anymore? Obviously if there is no limit he is going to renominate it until it gets deleted again. Eventually the people interested in defending the article will be tired out since we don't spend all day on wikipedia. Worm4Real (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Worm4Real (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Sorry I just noticed I didn't vote. It's pretty obvious that Entropy Stew and 173.0.2.204 have given well established and more importantly non-contested examples of the notability. SchuminWeb has made no effort dispute these posts beyond putting the little SPA tag on the users who made them. If he doesn't have an interest in disputing these claims maybe he should leave the conversation, since they are obviously the strongest ones. He doesn't literally need to state he doesn't like it for WP:IDONTLIKEIT to apply here.Worm4Real (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Worm4Real (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment To all the newcomers: If you find some better sources than the current ones, having looked at WP:RS to see what is reliable, and add them to the article, then you might stand a better chance than if you go in for mudslinging and ranting. Please note that the marking of single purpose accounts here at AfD is standard practice. I realise that in the gaming world it isn't always easy to find reliable sources, as blogs and forums don't count for much - even though that's the backbone of the info transfer. Do what you can, and I'll look in again. You might be able to shift me from this uncomfortable fence that I'm sitting on... Peridon (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is marking people as SPA as a substitute for your inability to dispute facts a common practice? How much work do we have to do so you don't side with someone who has an obvious WP:COI? The issue isn't the writing of the article, if it was he wouldn't be asking for a deletion based on a lack of notability. Look at the posts by EntropyStew and 173.0.2.204 if they do not meet your reliability standards please reply to those posts. If they meet your reliability standards we would be happy to add them to the article once it's no longer on the edge of oblivion. The TOPIC is either notable or not, the state of the article is irrelevant. I don't need to be a wikiholic to know the difference between where you'd want a WP:CLEANUP and WP:DELETE. Thank you for your time. Worm4Real (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Attacking everyone won't win you keeps. I don't know the nominator, but I do know MelanieN to be one of the fairest minded editors I've come across. SPAs - most forums have edit counters displayed and marking SPAs is our equivalent. For the record, I've made more than 14,000 edits and work here in Afd a lot. Credit me with knowing something, and with trying to advise you. I do know the difference between cleanup and delete - it's too late for a cleanup tag, but if you want to do a cleanup, go ahead. It's the referencing that seems the main issue. No, those refs above don't do much for me. They are articles about people, and they only mention OMM in passing. "Oh yes, didn't you have something to do with..." - that sort of mention. You need to find an article (or two) ABOUT OMM. You don't have to wait for the end of this discussion to improve the article. I've known total rewrites take place, and a whole slew of !votes to be changed. (In the course of one AfD, I changed my position three times.) If the discussion - note that it is a discussion and not a head count - goes against you, carry on trying to find those refs. Then come back - but contact me or someone like MelanieN, JamesBWatson or Boing! said Zebedee to explain before you put it in mainspace. This could avoid a speedy as re-creation of deleted article. Can I be fairer than to give you this advice? I'm not going to say keep while the referencing is as it is. There are considerable claims. Prove something. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who writes article about a video game review site? I don't see Gamepro writing articles about Game Informer! The links I provided to the Edge magazine preview and RPS interview both refer to Chet and Erik as being even more noteworthy for their involvement in OMM than for the games they are being interviewed about. If those references aren't smoking guns, if quoting the mainstream video game media about the notability of a video game media site is not enough, then your notability criteria are broken and you should delete the article. Don't stop there, though! Keep going! Entropy Stew (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, here's is an interview about Old Man Murray which comes from the links section of Erik's wikipedia page. I doubt it's usable as a reference since ripping quotes from popular videogame magazines doesn't seem to count for anything. Entropy Stew (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a direct response to me? Essentially you're saying any references posted here are invalid because they are not direct articles about the website? Oddly looking at similar articles about similar websites I cannot find what you're asking for provided for them, does OMM require special proof? We both know it's something that simply doesn't happen but it's being propped up because Schumin wants the article deleted because of a personal quarrel with Portal of Evil. He has an obvious and documented WP:COI, if needed I can get any relevant information in regard to that reposted to another site.
I really see nothing but Schumin quoting a piece of policy at anyone he can and simply ignoring anyone with a valid point. I personally had to extract a complaint about the references posted from you, were they simply going to be ignored until deletion? Don't you have a duty to inform people if the proof they're offering up isn't good enough? Why do I have to directly engage you to get constructive responses to information posted where Schumin floats around the discussion only replying to whatever he can flat out disregard? Worm4Real (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do I have to put up with crap when I'm trying to help you? Look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and feel free to tag anything that doesn't fit the standards of Wikipedia. Deletion is done by a closing admin, who will wade through all of this and make an decision based on the arguments and comments by all parties and persuasions. I wasn't ignoring the references - I'm on my way to bed. I've given you my advice. Now it's up to you. You can take it, or not. But I will add this. The more unproductive noise that comes from one side at AfD, the less there is to back their case. Not a policy - an observation based on experience. Over to you - prove me wrong in this case. Peridon (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT! First of all am I responding wrong or something here? It's like you put COMMENT in front of all your replies so they're more noticeable, Schumin wasn't doing that, can't we have a simple threaded reply string? Secondly, it really doesn't help me to suggest I go find something we both know doesn't exist for this type of site. Finally, re:otherstuffexists, I'm not using that as a defense against deletion, I am saying that your criteria for references are above and beyond other similar sites and what generally exists for these type of sites. It seems like a special burden of proof has been established for OMM, something which you're admitting is very unlikely for this type of website in your other posts. Additionally for some reason I had the impression you were the deciding admin, just to clear up any confusion in my posts. Worm4Real (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try one more time to explain about Wikipedia's need for reliable, published sources. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None of the provided links meet those criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is unclear about the word "published"? From the same Wikipedia link you just quoted, "Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." I did note, in my original comment here, two items from Wired magazine which is a Reliable Source, but the items did not provide significant coverage about the website itself. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's time to delete the Kotaku Wikipedia article too.
  • I don't see why this article went straight into deletion request. Should there have been a cleanup or expert subject request as per WP:FAILN first? Or possibly a merger into the Erik Wolpaw biography page.
Here are some sources. Considering the subject matter, there is not going to be any academic journals or wire articles.
Category One, material from Old Man Murray contributing to video game design. First, the creation of the Start-to-Crate metric (first published on Old Man Murray) and used by others in the popular press:
I believe that Wired's reliability is reasonable. It currently has over 8000 citations on wikipedia.
  • 2 references from tvtropes.org
    • CrateExpectations, which directly links the Start-to-Crate measurement on Old Man Murray, listing the site as the originator.
    • OldManMurray, a tertiary source documenting the website's other contributions.
  • 1 review from yougamers, referencing Old Man Murray's Start-to-Crate metric. Seven years after initial publication.
  • 1 retrospective of the Doom franchise, using the Start-to-Crate metric.
  • 1 overview of 31 different games using the Start-to-Crate metric. Nine years after initial publication.
  • 1 reference in joystiq discussing Old Man Murray's contributions to video game design theory
  • 1 review of Dead Space, mentioning the Start-to-Crate metric. Ten years after initial publication.
and altogether, 18 links from external websites to the Old Man Murray 'Start-to-Crate' article (WP:SOURCESEARCH), including a 2008 article in French.
  • 1 irrelevent article about meta-blogging, yet to root the premise of the piece with a description of the Start-to-Crate metric. Six years after initial publication.
  • An unreferenced website devoted entirely to documenting crates (and barrels) found in video games.
  • An animation student referencing the Start-to-Crate metric for a thesis project.
What else is Old Man Murray notable for?
  • 1 retrospective from escapist, citing an older Old Man Murray work on the same topic.
  • 1 article on adventuregamers discussing the dearth of adventure games coming to market, citing the same Old Man Murray source.
  • 1 rebuttal to the Old Man Murray article on the decline of adventure games.
  • 1 interview with the fictional persona of Old Man Murray.
  • 1 review of the Old Man Murray site itself, from back when people still wrote reviews of websites on other websites.
Category Two, documenting the Old Man Murray phase of award-winning video game professionals. Would there be an entry for Walden if not for Thoreau? Auvers-sur-Oise without the painters who lived there? (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
  • 15 additional trivial references from Wired, which consistently identify Chet Faliszek and/or Erik Wolpaw with Old Man Murray.
  • 1 interview at rockpapershotgun, rating Wolpaw's contributions to Old Man Murray as more memorable than his award-winning work in video games.
  • Erik Wolpaw's own biography had a cross-link to this article. There are only seven facts listed in the biography; his association with Old Man Murray included.
Category Ugh, material from Old Man Murray contributing to misogyny.
  • 1 reference on encyclopediadramatica which is disgusting. I recommend not looking at it.

Iglotl (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Iglotl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment Putting Comment (or occasionally something else like Response or Sigh...) is standard practice at AfD. OK. This is my personal interpretation of the refs - I'm not the closing admin (and a closing admin is someone who has taken no part in the debate) and not even an admin (although I have closed a discussion at AfD which can be done under certain circumstances by a non-admin). Gamasutra looks OK to me - a bit minimal but as good as can be expected. Alice seems to be a comment by a forum member. Red Steel is a mention which links to OMM's site for the Crate article - I don't know how that rates. Joystiq is like gamasutra. I like the zdnet piece - puts OMM into good company. (Perhaps that's an insult...) I'm still reserving my judgement - I'd like to see what others think now. (I'm only one voice in the discussion, don't forget.) Besides which, I've seen rather too many crates... Peridon (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject Video games' guide to sources may help in determining which of the websites are considered reliable.
  • Wired.com, owned by Conde Nast has 15 editors.
  • tvtropes.org is a moderated wiki project.
  • yougamers, owned by Futuremark Productions has two editors.
  • doomworld, part of 1up.com, currently owned by UGO Entertainment (employs only 39 people; I found three editoral staff listed on LinkedIn). At the time of article publication was owned by Ziff Davis Media, which currently has 8 editors on staff.
  • the Escapist, owned by Themis Group has at least three editors.
  • flak magazine (now defunct), independently operated had 8 editors.
  • Kotaku, owned by Gawker Media, has 5 editors

Iglotl (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Iglotl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Yeah arguments count and your arguments are kind of diminished when you go putting strike out tags on votes you don't like, doesn't really seem like something someone would do in good faith. If you are officially annulling a vote by a blocked account you might want to put that in your edit reason rather than "striking keep by 'new' account". Worm4Real (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your edits show you to be nothing more than a single-purpose account/meatpuppet, I feel no compelling urge to explain myself to you. HalfShadow 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny in WP:GD it says it's up to the closing admin to decide whether a vote should be ignored or not, nothing about putting strike-through tags around it. Though I guess because you're not a SPA you must be right. Worm4Real (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Imagine a world where a young girl reads some history about her favourite old game, Half-Life 2. She sees video game developer Hall of Famer Gabe Newell reference Old Man Murray with reverence and thinks "I'd like to learn more about this curious Old Man Murray that spawned irreverent game criticism at the turn of the 21st century. I'll research this dead website on Wikipedia using my telecomp." (Remember, it's the future). But when she calls up the page there's nothing there! Then it turns out she was actually a ghost all along! Is that the future we want to create with this wonderful community my fellow Wikipedaphiles? Fussbett (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Old Man Murray is a website fondly remembered by many in the games industry and among its customers. By its very nature small sites like this tend not to acquire a whole lot of mentions in printed media. I could enlarge upon the whiff of COI hanging about the nomination - but I won't. QuipQuotch (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fondly remembered ≠ notability. And still no significant coverage in reliable sources for the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fondly remembered...by many. The "by many" that you ignored is notability. Further refining the "many" to be members of industry confers additional notability, because they then mention OMM in their articles or games. Did you hear that Serious Sam 3 is coming out soon? There very well might not have been a Serious Sam 2 without OMM's notability selling the original. Entropy Stew (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fondly remembered by many ≠ notability as well. I'm sure many people fondly remember Miss Kirk's 1986-1987 kindergarten class in Rogers, Arkansas as well, but since no one has given it substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, there is no coverage of it here. Such is the case with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Notability follows from substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided the best of the stuff above gets added to the article as refs or links. There seems to be quite widespread mention of the site. Even though it is not 'in depth' coverage, the mentions are indicative to me of an importance in the gaming world. I am not a gamer myself, and other than Free Cell, Plebs and Jacaranda Jim I have never played a game. I did once sit watching a young girl playing a couple of games and trying to explain them to me. (She was electric wheelchair bound and never going to escape to a 'normal' life - severe brittle bone disease.) I'd just finished devirusing and protecting her computer, which meant she could get back to her games. They were her life. For most gamers, the games are not so vital. Sort of.... If a current project of mine reaches fruition, a game spin-off is possible - and I will keep a close watch for crates as a result of this discussion... Peridon (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know that I am an SPA. I was never involved with OMM. I do, however, know about Ben Schumin's decade old grudge against the owner of OMM. His other site, www.portalofevil.com made fun of Schumin. His egoistic response shows that he is not impartial to the deletion of this article. The fact that he nominated both portalofevil and OMM for speedy deletion is equally telling. Some of the OMM defenders have certainly been antagonistic to say the least. Nevertheless, Schumin's agenda is clear. His ears are closed to arguments beyond his own. 128.123.212.69 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — 128.123.212.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • And apparently, since all you have done is commented on the nominator rather than the article, you have nothing to add to this discussion, do you? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strange that someone would do that. It's almost as if he or she perceived the nominator to be the problem rather than the article and chose to carry on the discussion in that direction. I guess my question is - assuming that is indeed the case - how can we be certain that 128.123.212.69 isn't correct? User:Shecky Fragbaum (Talk) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Shecky Fragbaum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Unfortunately, your investment in taking this article down IS part of the discussion. In fact, it SHOULD be enough to invalidate your AfD, because your COI gives you no right or authority to nominate the article. I have nothing against you; I don't know who you are and never saw your interactions with portal of evil. I've looked at your info on wikipedia and it seems like you've done many great services to the website in the name of free and open information. You've created many articles and heavily edited many others. This is a great service to wikipedia and the general public. Your history with Chet Faliszek, however, and your grudge against his websites (OMM which you have here nominated for speedy deletion and portalofevil.com which you successfully nominated for speedy deletion [MEANING THAT IT SHOULD BE REINSTATED AND DISCUSSED BY UNBIASED PEOPLE]) makes you a biased editor. If somebody else had nominated OMM for deletion, the discussion would probably be much more civil. It might have even been deleted without controversy. YOU are the controversy here. 128.123.212.69 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — 128.123.212.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Let the record show, once again, that both articles were deleted via full deletion discussions (see Portal of Evil's nomination and Old Man Murray's first nomination) in the AFD process. Whether only one other person or fifty people participated is immaterial. Speedy deletion did not factor into either article's deletion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Therefore, you must get your facts right, and only then may you opine about the situation. Additionally, once again, since you have no comment about the article's lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources or even about the content of the article as it stands, and focused entirely on editor personalities, I would suggest that you have no argument to bring to the table. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Whether only one other person or fifty people participated is immaterial" -- spoken like a true fan of "protests and other political demonstrations", Schumin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.227.123 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those aren't discussions. Discussions require more than one voice. The issue is that YOU nominated OMM and POE for deletion when you are unfit to do so. This AfD should have never come up (by your hands) in the first place. Should a holocaust denier be allowed to delete an article on the holocaust because he or she denies the validity of all citations? Should a man who has feuded with the owner of OMM and POE since 2002 be allowed to nominate those sites for deletion? The answer to both questions is "No." I repeat: you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. While nowhere near as extreme as the holocaust denier, it makes my point. Lauritz Melchior (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I've done my best to look through all the links above; can anyone tell me if I've missed any significant coverage of the site in a reliable publication? I see material which can support related articles (RPS interview with Wolpaw, for example) but the total verifiable information about the site itself can fit in two sentences. This is not enough for an article. Marasmusine (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interogative - Would you please share that two sentence summary with the class? 76.67.98.250 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — 76.67.98.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Something like "Old Man Murray is a gaming humour website established by Chet Faliszek[1] and Erik Wolpaw.[2] The start-to-crate metric for reviewing games originated from one of Wolpaw's Old Man Murray articles.[3]" - again, I might be missing a key piece of significant coverage from a reliable source that can expand on this and will be happy to be corrected. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been established that UGO is a reliable source, and that OMM was a UGO partner, and their content reviewed by UGO staff. I am happy to re-do the citations of the entire article to be that of OMM itself. But we both know that would be a bit silly. Similarly, reading everything discussed on this page, all the exchanges that have taken place and awkwardly trying to distill it to the two sentences you provided is also very silly. 67.247.167.15 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I was puzzled by that one, too... Peridon (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I phrased that poorly. As a total outsider, the bickering in this Afd combined with the poor quality of references in the article gives the impression of a small group of fans claiming notability of "their" website while being ignored by any larger community. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To put this in perspective, everyone who's voted "keep" (the legitimate votes, anyway), is voting not to delete an article about a site that (and let's face facts here) has been dead for nine years. I have no idea why the site even still exists. HalfShadow 17:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To put this in perspective, you were run off of Portal Of Evil (a site created and hosted by the same people who created Old Man Murray) for being a creepy waterheaded pervert. Oh but let's not mention your history with the site because you're trying to be impartial. Much like Schumin, you are establishing Wikipedia as an environment where stunted manchildren can finally get revenge on those who bullied them without consequence. You two belong together. 98.125.244.185 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heard of the place. What little I saw of it, it involved "people" (and I use the term loosely) making fun of sites and calling each other fags. It's deletion was one of the best things to happen to the internet. HalfShadow 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ORLY You never heard of it... but you saw a little of it? And it's good it was deleted? Even though you never heard of it? You do realize that you're contradicting yourself in the space of three sentences? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.244.185 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the fact that it's been up for deletion at least twice, which is how I saw it. I'm happy the second one sticked. Y'know, you get your foot any further down your throat, gag reflex is likely to kick in. HalfShadow 18:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting something based upon its existence in that bygone era called "the past" is flat out stupid to begin with. That said, OMM is still being referred to as "legendary" in print 9 years after it stopped updating, and still has a pagerank of 5 because it's referenced by prominent game media and game dev sites. Entropy Stew (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • HalfShadow raises a good point. The Roman Empire fell over 1000 years ago. Why are we still talking about it? There's a lot of clutter we can delete on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.20.108 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Man_Murray_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138180424"