150:
Further to this, it is understood that
Underneath the Bunker may not, in some people's eyes, have received the recognition deserving of an encyclopoedia entry. I believe describing it as a 'hoax' however (as the wikipedia does) is unfair - and misleading. The website is clearly fictional in content
300:
Fair enough. Perhaps this entry should be deleted. The only good use it has is that it serves as a warning to vistors of the
Underneath the Bunker journal, pointing out the satirical or 'spoof-like' nature of that site. But if this site is not, as you say, considered 'notable', then such a warning
239:
Relating to the google hits, it is understandable that the majority of them relate to the song by R.E.M as this is almost fifteen years old and, though obscure in itself, is by a well-known band. Perhaps there should be wikipedia entry for this song; though whether that counts out the website (not
151:(and is all fiction a hoax? I think not). This should, perhaps, be altered. Ultimately I do believe it is of enough interest to be included in wikipedia, as it has been around online for three years or so, with more than a hundred articles published over that period.
125:
240:
explicitly related to the song, as far as I know) I'm not sure. The line 'none of which look like reliable sources' is charged with equivocal meanings.
92:
87:
96:
79:
273:. Roughly speaking, a web site is considered notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Currently, no such
308:
247:
181:
285:, have been found (via Google search or else). As long as such sources are not presented, the article fails the inclusion criteria. --
158:
17:
183:(or "literature"), none of which look like reliable sources (and quite a few of them are about the song of the same name).
331:
36:
265:
by nominator (particularly relating to the two IP edits above). Knowledge (XXG) covers only topics which satisfy the
316:
294:
255:
233:
209:
192:
166:
145:
61:
83:
330:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
312:
290:
251:
162:
141:
304:
243:
154:
180:. Google search finds roughly 50 original hits when searching for "Underneath the Bunker" and "literary"
136:)." I'm sending this here for wider discussion, since PROD was contested per a comment on the talk page.
75:
67:
205:
286:
137:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
274:
282:
270:
218:
177:
133:
49:
228:
201:
278:
132:
Repeating my PROD rationale: "Non-notable web content. Article is sourced to blogs only (
188:
266:
53:
113:
222:
184:
324:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
120:
109:
105:
101:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
334:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
269:; in this case, the applicable guideline is
48:, consensus is that the article fails the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
200:Per nomination and comments above.
24:
1:
50:relevant notability guideline
351:
317:17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
295:16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
256:16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
234:14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
217:No verifiable sources per
210:14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
193:13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
167:13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
146:13:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
62:17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
327:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
76:Underneath the Bunker
68:Underneath the Bunker
275:independent sources
267:notability criteria
301:may be redundant
319:
307:comment added by
258:
246:comment added by
169:
157:comment added by
342:
329:
302:
277:, which must be
241:
231:
225:
152:
123:
117:
99:
44:The result was
34:
350:
349:
345:
344:
343:
341:
340:
339:
338:
332:deletion review
325:
229:
223:
119:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
348:
346:
337:
336:
298:
297:
283:self-published
237:
236:
212:
195:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
347:
335:
333:
328:
322:
321:
320:
318:
314:
310:
309:144.32.126.12
306:
296:
292:
288:
287:B. Wolterding
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
260:
259:
257:
253:
249:
248:144.32.126.15
245:
235:
232:
226:
220:
216:
213:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:
170:
168:
164:
160:
156:
148:
147:
143:
139:
138:B. Wolterding
135:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
326:
323:
299:
262:
238:
214:
197:
173:
159:81.105.49.22
149:
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
303:—Preceding
242:—Preceding
153:—Preceding
305:unsigned
281:and not
279:reliable
244:unsigned
176:, fails
155:unsigned
126:View log
54:Davewild
263:Comment
215:Delete.
198:Delete.
93:protect
88:history
271:WP:WEB
219:WP:WEB
178:WP:WEB
174:Delete
134:WP:SPS
121:delete
97:delete
46:Delete
224:Nsevs
202:Renee
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
313:talk
291:talk
252:talk
230:Talk
221:. --
206:talk
189:talk
185:Huon
163:talk
142:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
315:)
293:)
254:)
227:•
208:)
191:)
165:)
144:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
311:(
289:(
250:(
204:(
187:(
161:(
140:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.