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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result wasDelete,Nakon22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Universe (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) (delete) – (View log)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedsingle-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspectedcanvassed users:{{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked forsockpuppetry:{{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|username}}.

I was about to try to clean up this page, but I am not sure that this article satisfiesWP:WEB orWP:N. Specifically, it fails to be notable as there are not multiple, independent mentions of the subject inreliable sources. All the references currently in the article are to web forums, podcasts, or webpages except for two press releases (from Wizzard and SubscribeCast) which are not independent of the site itself as they indicate a business relationship. The only source that might qualify is the blog positing from news.com.au, but since even this would only make one mention, it fails the "multiple" aspect ofWP:N. Therefore I suggest it be deleted.DestroHolmes (talk)08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Tough call, this one. Article currently lacks reliable sources, the only source that could be useful is number 1, MSN Money, which is broken. No hits on google news. --neon whitetalk01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some important history on this page, but maybe that's not a good reason to keep the page on Wikipedia. I have copied the article to an offline file in case the show re-emerges and stirs more controversy.—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.148.30.208 (talk)12:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entries on this page, are all from the podcast creators mouth and/or web site. Everything is factual and no external sources were necessary. All information gathered on this specific podcast is all factual not opinion based and should not be removed.—Precedingunsigned comment added by38.112.113.146 (talk)17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why anyone feels this entry should be so heavily linked/sourced. The information presented is all factual, and it seems like this information should be preserved as a record of both MU's popularity and also of the major problems that ended in MU's downfall. If it IS deleted and Mr. Grundy begins another business venture that could have similar problems, people should know about this situation. I'm voting against deletion.—Precedingunsigned comment added by68.178.108.11 (talk)21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the information in this post is very factual and not at all opinion-based. Nobody is disputing the facts as presented. Why delete it? People who are interested in knowing what Mysterious Universe was have nowhere else to find factual information as is contained here. As mentioned earlier, if Mr. Grundy is to go back into the podcasting business, people should be informed about his history and what transpired with the downfall of Mysterious Universe. I am against deletion.—Precedingunsigned comment added by76.105.214.55 (talk)23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this post is correct. It should not be deleted. People who may be interested in what Mysterious Universe was need the information as is contained here. As mentioned earlier, if Mr. Grundy returns to the podcasting business, people should be informed about his history and what transpired with the downfall of Mysterious Universe. I am against deletion.—Precedingunsigned comment added byTruthdemon (talk •contribs)00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)—Truthdemon (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

This article should absolutely NOT be deleted. There are NO factual errors. The fact that it is based on internet sources does not invalidate the events. Is the person who marked it for deletion suggesting that no wikis can be made relating to internet events? The article should stand both for the historical record and as a reference for potential future customers who may be considering subscribing (if Mr Grundy decides to revive the show or go into business again).—Precedingunsigned comment added bySensibleSam (talk •contribs)22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. There are no errors. WesTer

• Comment This article is being considered for deletion because ofnotability concerns. There are no reliable source on the article so therefore it's accuracy cannot be assertained. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising. Also i believe the above 4 comments to be the same editor, who may be involved with the article. --SineBot (talk)20:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the above comments ARE from 4 users, or more. The above commenter has no basis for such a statement, and should perhaps offer proof before making such assumptions. The consensus currently seems to indicate that this article should not be deleted.—Precedingunsigned comment added by67.42.148.15 (talk)22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)—67.42.148.15 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

There currently is no consensus are no valid reasons for keeping this article have been put forward. --neon whitetalk16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the four people that posted a RipOff Report. On the EERIE Forums, we have discovered that three of the reporters were forum members. That right there verifies that the Ripoff Reports were made by four separate people. Deleting this Wiki would be irresponsible and uneccessary.—Precedingunsigned comment added by71.61.185.255 (talk)13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)—71.61.185.255 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

This posting is factually correct and relevant and should not be deleted. There are simply not enough sources available for this information, but that doesn't mean it is not valuable information to the general public.—Precedingunsigned comment added by71.196.90.101 (talk)02:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the entry above this one - I think you are confusing a comment on the page above that is alleging four comments on this page came from the same source with a reference elsewhere to four "RipOff Reports" being filed against Mysterious Universe.—Precedingunsigned comment added by99.163.241.82 (talk)14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)—99.163.241.82 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

• Weak keep I am not happy about an attempt to deconstruct every single reference in this article to prove that a popular podcast is not really notable. If it's on a top 50 list, it can make a reasonable claim to be notable. Perhaps it's borderline, but I don't see what the encyclopedia gains by deleting this.Yechiel (Shalom)23:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are reliable and many are primary and self published by the creators themselves which cannot be used to establish notability (see comment by nominator). There is very little to suggest notability. Remember popularity is not the same as notability, being on a top 50 list does not guarantee notability. There is little evidence of this getting any coverage in second party reliable sources. --neon whitetalk01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: We've had some single-purpose accounts voting to keep. Please see my comment atWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Truthdemon.Yechiel (Shalom)23:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to fight this, and frankly don't care. Truthdemon is the only login I use for wikipedia. I sign in from work and home, thus the different IP addresses, I guess. I have never signed in under a different username. I may have forgotten to sign in, and edited the wiki without signing in, but I can't be certain. Franky, accusing me of sockpuppetry, or whatever, seems a lame excuse for disregarding my comments. I only created the account to keep the Mysterious Universe Wiki A)updated and B) fairly evenhanded, since someone, initially Thekloofy and now DestroHolmes seemed to want to whitewash (and now delete) the entry. I found and edited the MU Wiki because I wanted it to reflect the truth of what was going on with MU. If you want to deceive inveigle and obfuscate, go right ahead. If you wonder who I am, I am Gatorbobo; I was Gatorbobo at Mysterious Universe (before the Forums were deleted) and I use the same username in other forums as well. I'm easy to find, if you want to verify my existence.Truthdemon (talk)04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Gatorbobo[reply]

Accusations of sock puppetry should not be taken personally. This afd contains many very similar posts by multiple accounts that have little edits other than this afd. This is naturally suspicious. If you have not violated policy on sock puppetry or meat puppetry then ignore it. The problem with your editing seems to be that you are addingoriginal research that you may personal believe to be correct but is notverifiable which often happens with those who have aconflict of interest. --neon whitetalk15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My bringing this article toAfD has nothing to do with disputing the content of the article or some desire to see it removed or hidden. In its present form the article contains unencyclopedic sections and parts do not meetWP:NPOV principles. Further, several of the references are to pages that have already disappeared from the internet, as will more over time. Before I spend anymore time working on this article, I want to establish that indeed it satisfies one of the most common reasons cited for deletion - lack of notability.Mysterious Universe has not, to my estimation, been discussed in multiple and independent reliable sources - one of the key definitions ofnotability here on Wikipedia - and now that it is defunct it will likely never will be. If the community decides here that it is indeed notable, and therefore a Wikipedia article is warranted, I will be more than happy to work to make this a better article in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and principles. But I definitely do not want to spend more hours working on it only to have it nominated for deletion a few months from now when another editor notices the lack ofreliable sources. Finally, for what it is worth I do not believe there is any sockpuppertry going on here; all the above comments likely come from separate individuals. Several new editors were likely directed to this debate from a comment onPodcast Alley or some other webforum.DestroHolmes (talk)08:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing other individuals to post is considered to bemeat puppetry which is dealt with under the same rules as sock puppetry. FromWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets "Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. --neon whitetalk15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems notable. Seems to have some OK sources. Needs a thorough cleanup. AfD is no substitute for cleanup. --SmokeyJoe (talk)14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? --neon whitetalk23:19, 17 June 2008 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.