Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet Professional

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE by 11 to 2. All anonymous and sockpuppet votes were discarded. Postdlf 06:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Professional[edit]

A "3 month old web comic" -- Longhair | Talk 09:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 09:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 09:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable yet. Also, avoid terms like "going on for three months" because such terms need to be updated every month. It is better to write "Going on since ... ". Sjakkalle 11:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. ping 08:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It looks like it might be notable someday, but not today. Nestea 02:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Voting to Keep if only because several well-known (to me, at least, who knows nearly no web-comic producers) web-comic writers are heavily behind this and believe it will take off in a big way. The concept is also nicely twisted. Is there a vote-category of "reveiw in 6 months" ? --Simon Cursitor 07:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I follow the webcomics community, and the closest this gets to notable even within that fairly small community is some ill-tempered comments about "What is this doing on the top of The Webcomics List?" A Man In Black 10:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hush whiners. Would you rather prefer the term "pet professional" to refer to the veterinarian? And I've yet to see something else as unique in referance to this term. Also, quite an original theme as well as funny. - Gravitron, pet owner (all you slashdot critics-dissers need a good hour in subspace SVS duelbox spanking, damned sony station newbies)
    • Only edits by anon.[1]
  • Keep Keep it I like it.
  • Delete, not notable enough yet.
  • Keep. Becoming increasingly well known and is the only known reference to this term.
  • Keep. If Man-Faye can have an entry, as disgusting as he is, a resoundingly good web-comic with a bright future deserves one.
  • Delete. Not notable. Regarding this voting process, on May 01, at 3:42pm (unknown time zone, I'm guessing CDT/-6), the webcomic author added a request to his page that his readers come spam this vote process. Unrelatedly, I doubt Simoncursitor's claim of "several" web-comic writers being behind this; I suspect the list is just Scott Kurtz. --jholman 03:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote. Scott Kurtz is several web-comic writers. ;)William McDuff 05:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this may some day be a big hit etc, or actually have some history of significance that should be recorded, right now that is not the case. Wikipedia isn't advertising. (at least to me it isn't) Sidenote: I actually came to this deletion page via the Comic. --ORBIT 04:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Note, references here. Web_Comic. Hmmm is if web comics belong in wikipedia something to take to the cooler? (Userfriendly and a few other historicals are ones that deserver mention, but should the line be drawn?) --ORBIT 00:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I'm a bit torn on the issue, as WikiProject_Comics --ORBIT 00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not written very well, but I'm still voting keep. There are plenty of other webcomics which have Wikipedia entries and they're not considered adverts.--Sionide 09:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, unique
    • Anon's only edit, also deleted William McDuff's comment.[10], [11]
  • Keep, I figure it's better sooner added than later, get the process out of the way. Not to mention that if you wait, somethin' else might come and snag the entry.
    • Anon's only edit.[12]
  • Keep, it was mentioned in 01/05/05's PVP so it's relevant to me. Plus as long as some people feel this is relevant who are the rest of us to delete it? I've seen the first issue's of comic books from the major publishers (DC and Marvel) go up on there first issue. Isn't this just prejudice against the independant publishers? (UTC)
    • Unsigned comment by anon.[13]
  • Delete. And kill all sock puppets. Postdlf 10:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an interesting comic and has a relation to PVP. || Geofferic 7:37 CST, 2 May 2005
    • User's first edit.[14]
  • Keep The entry isn't written very well and the comic hasn't been around too long, but as long as there is nothing more notable with the same name, I don't see any reason to delete it. I'm sure it'll be here again, eventually, anyway. --Corduroyninja 12:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first edit.[15]
  • Keep. This has potential. Give it time to grow out of it's niche and I'm sure it will get better.
    • Anon's only edit.[16]
  • No Vote(already voted - keep). Just a small addendum, allow me to be the first to land a five across the eye of JHolman, not as a reader, not as a voter, but as a person who can't stand stupid people making deceptive remarks, spreading misinformation knowingly and twisting facts to advance their agenda. The author didn't request that his readers will SPAM the place, he asked them to come and vote to keep, adding a joke that if you don't like it still go and vote keep. Now please tell me, what is exactly wrong about someone asking their supporters to show their support by voting in a place publicaly open to votes, whereas people are expected to voice their oppinion regarding something? Get a clue, trencher. - Gravitron
    • Comment made by 82.80.153.16, only edits are to this page.
    • We ignore all votes by brand-new users and votes by unsigned in anonymous users, primarily because there is no other surefire way to make sure that people aren't repeat voting under different names and IPs, and also because we expect Wikipedia users to be a little more familiar with the site before they start participating in policy discussions. So you're just wasting everyone's time without accomplishing anything, because all of your votes will be discarded. If anything, you're hurting your cause, because the more such votes turn up, the more established Wikipedians become convinced that the article should go. You piss us off. Postdlf 22:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please Postdlf, be a little friendlier than that. "You piss us off" is not needed. Sjakkalle 12:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get pissed off by cascading sock puppets that flood this page and alter/delete other peoples' comments. Maybe that's just me. Postdlf 12:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote How come the page stopped displaying all of the comments? Someone sabotaged it using a wikipedia script exploit? Is there a "page 2" that I missed? Lets see if this edit will fix it. Ah, yes, there we go. I don't like registering, I'm TIRED of registering across a gazillion of sites and forums and blongs and what not. Plus, all it ended up doing was generating a torrent of SPAM towards my email, be that 90% advertisements and 10% of retards emailing me about things I could care less to know, like their family problems, why I like the wrong kind of games or that I should believe in god and he'll save me. It's not like I'm that an unknown in the world, hiding behind proxies and shit, most know me anyway. Do I piss you off? Your problem, weak mind. Go a few rounds on Samurai Spirits II vs Mizuki/cham-cham on hardest difficulty, it'll piss you even more that the PC cheats. The truth hurts, if you can't handle it then enter your pink sphere with ?ignore %tickname on macro. If you rather be a tyrant, then just be a tyrant, have an inner board for judging things if you fear votes so much. Not that I'll despise you any less, but you won't have to be pissed by people with free mind. Oh, and "established wikipedians", was that a joke? It's like calling an established forumer on someone with ten hundred thousand of posts. I'll have more trust in a casual passying-by poster to be genuine and not running multi-accounts to rig-boost numbers than I would in your resident members of "established wikipedians", because in the end, they're a community, with a bandwagon and a single flag, as such, they're far more devoted and capable of mischief than a just-stopped-2-say-my-thing person. It's like mindless goons of something aweful. Try throw a poll there, half of them will deploy 5,000 zombies to do voting for them and use multi-proxies to do the rest of the other half while banning them from access. - Gravitron (forget the article, I'm fired on the principle here...these wiki guys are crooked or decent?)
    • Before going off on the concepts of voting, please read how the procedure takes place. Valid reasons are considered, and then editors will come and base the vote on those. The comunity works because the majority of the comunity here wants it to work and reacts strongly agaist anything they see as wrong. --ORBIT 05:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:L1nX (Talk) Web 4 May (19:20) SAST. Interesting webcomic which looks likely to take of in the future
  • Keep. It's a solid strip; while the article could use more information, I fall into the "not worth removing, worth improving" line. Timcotten 02:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's seventh edit.[19]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pet_Professional&oldid=49952908"