Talk:Jerome

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 03:17, 19 November 2007

Delete?

I don't think this page should be deleted. I think it's a prefectly legit inside joke. Heimstern Läufer 23:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't either, but Seriously apparently really wanted the deletion templates up and was clogging recent changes, so I made them for him/her. Seriously, if you have a good reason to delete it, post it here! — _talk Bubsty _edits 23:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like seriously removed the template, meaning he/she is fine with the article. I'll take the template off here then. — _talk Bubsty _edits 23:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it should definitely be deleted. First of all, unlike Dan, it only appears twice. Second of all, we don't have any information other than the fact that he appears to be a boy. Mikatoo 20:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, seriously, delete

This has 2 appearances, one of which is said for a second on the CD, not even on the site. This is really not noteworthy, I say delete. Dr. Clash 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a perfectly legit inside joke. With the previous votes, no delete won the debate before... 3-2 No Delete. --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see the point in this article. Loafing 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The criterion for a running gag is that it have three or more appearances. This one only has two, and so the second appearance is simply a reference to the first — it's noted this way on Strong Badia National Anthem#Inside References. So, until a third appearance, er, appears, I move that this be deleted. Trey56 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with statements, er, stated, above. Delete. — Has Matt? (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, delete. Dr. Clash 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that, despite the obscurity of it, and only 2 appearances of it, it should stay, because while it doesn't appear much, it is noteworthy. At least, it's noteworthy enough for TBC to mention it more than once. The_3000th_Flare 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Haddiman I really don't think Jerome is all important unless he makes a third appaearance, if he will make a third appearence I say he stays otherwise [thumbs down}.

Historically, this article has been in the Inside Jokes category rather than Running Gags. I'd consider that a more appropriate description of this article. I have stated multiple times that I'm in favor of keeping this article, and still am. Heimstern Läufer 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an inside joke, not a running gag, so keep. —BazookaJoe 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Inside joke. Like many of the other "names of significance" (Dan, Dennis, etc.), --DorianGray 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This might be an inside joke, but it seems to be a mere coincidence. BALEETED! --Collin Diver 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. With only two sightings, one of which wasn't even on the site at all, one can hardly call this a running gag or even an inside joke. If anything, one references the other. Link the two uses of Jerome on their respective pages, but this one isn't needed. Delete. -YK 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I kinda think Jerome is of some importance, but there definitely needs to be some more things added to the article. BTW if you can mention 1/2 and appearance more then we have 2 1/2 appearances which rounds up to the required (or suggested?) 3 appearances, by convention. Neutral. --Stux 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An inside joke needs to happen at least three time on the site, not including CDs etc. I say this is totally DEL TACO!!! I mean, DELETED!!! --thelongestpants 16 June 2007

Comments added after above discussion was closed

Delete. Hey, what ever happened to this conversation? TheYellowDart—(t/c) 05:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete for reasons sstated above. — Defender1031*Talk 05:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to TheYellowDart: This discussion was closed as no consensus on April 18. Heimstern Läufer 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot more deletes than anything else here. — Defender1031*Talk 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not measured by numbers. At least, not solely by numbers. Heimstern Läufer 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then by what? — Defender1031*Talk 06:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Where can I find the April 18th conversation, Heimstern? --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 06:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The 18th of April was when the template was removed. The conversation leading up to it is up there. (points to above conversation) —Shwoo 06:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Depending on your definition of consensus, it is measured by numbers. For example, I'm happy to call anything close to 100% consensus ;-) In this case, it was more like 8 - 4 and 1 neutral vote. That's not very close to 100%, especially when you consider that most of the keep votes (sorry, "opinions", not "votes" ;-) ) were cast by serious editors. You'll also notice that I voted for deletion, as did Trey who removed the tbd template. Loafing 12:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I counted 12 deletes and 3 keeps and 1 neutral. To me, that's good enough to delete. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of other ex-pages that had more appearances that were deleted. Delete it! --^{The Goblin!!} 05:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's normally not necessary to tally names like this, but I'm just trying to get a consistent count here. Up till the current conversation, I count the following people in support of the article — Heimstern Läufer, Bubsty, TotalSpaceshipGuy3, The 3000th Flare, BazookaJoe, and DorianGray — and the following people in opposition of the article — Mikatoo, Dr. Clash, Loafing, Trey56, Has Matt?, Haddiman, Collin Diver, and YK. That made it 7-6 in opposition of the article, which is why the discussion was closed after over half a month of inactivity.

Since that point, Thelongestpants, Theyellowdart, DeFender1031, and Techgeekmbg have recently expressed their opposition to the article, which makes it 11-6. If more people express their opposition to this article but none express support, then there may be a case for reopening the discussion and deleting this article.

The point Heimstern is making is important, though, which is that the final outcome will be determined not only by the number of users in support or opposition of the article, but also by the quality of their arguments. Trey56 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dang it, I'm always mis-counting things. But I actually would of put a quality argument if there was anything left to say. To me, this article is irrelevant and just not worth it. There is not even three appearances, and one is even not on the website. The article's description is one sentence itself! --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 06:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

keep it... it made me laugh.71.105.222.90

how does this need cleanup?

seriously? it does not need cleanup. Slipknot6477 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It needed cleanup before, but then Shwoo went ahead and fixed it up. I removed the cleanup template. — Has Matt? (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, seriously, let's get rid of this already.

There's 3 threads about deleting this article, two of them seemed to have reached a consensus to delete this article, yet still, here it is. Why is it still here? I'm in favor of delteeting this article. -- Super Martyo boing! 05:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Lets just do it already! DELETE! ^{The Goblin!!} 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was discussed quite long enough last time, and no, it did not reach consensus. In case this is unclear, consensus is not defined as a simple majority of users or any such thing. Heimstern Läufer 05:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, consensus aside, let's reach one now. -- Super Martyo boing! 05:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the people above who advocate deleting the article have given a reason why. Since, again, this is a discussion, not a vote, I think it would be appropriate for them to do so. I am in favor of keeping this article because we believe it is an inside joke (not a running gag). The article has been here long enough that I think TBC would need to say "nah, there's nothing to that" for us to dismiss it. — It's dot com 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I stick to my reason in previous discussion. ^{The Goblin!!} 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we already deleted that article about that lady Strong Bad said "Shut up" to twice, we should delete this one as well. Sewiously. Bad Bad Guy 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to fail to meet notability guidelines, since there are only two appearances. Now that we are keeping talk pages, we could restore at a later time. But for now, del taco. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure what Dot com is saying above is that inside jokes have a different notability criterion than running gags. Inside jokes do not necessarily need more than two appearances, because we believe it might be somehow significant to TBC. Homestar Coder 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep this article because of its inside joke status. —BazookaJoe 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If this discussion is open again, then I'll go ahead and go on record as supporting deletion. Dagron 19:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Only two appearances, one of which isn't even on the site. For the love of Pete Sampras, delete it already! – The Chort 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with previous opinions — delete. OptimisticFool 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Support keep for reasons stated by It's dot com and Homestar Coder. --DorianGray 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with DG, It's dot com and Homestar Coder. Keep. Sam the Man 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New thread. I stand by my previous vote to delete this article. As is, it's essentially pointless: it's all of one line long, thus providing almost no actual info whatsoever (info we're not terribly likely to *get*, either, I might add). It has only two appearances -- one of which isn't even on the site itself -- and add to this the fact that the context of which the name "Jerome" appears is almost identical... Granted, we have no clue what TBC's motives behind this were, but given how long it's been since the name has last been used, I fail to see, myself, how this qualifies as a running gag, or even an inside joke. Perhaps it's a kid they went to school with. It doesn't really matter. Unlike Dan, Kevin, or Greg, this name isn't used enough to warrant a separate article. I say, unless we get at least a third appearance that'd provide us with some sort of information on the enigmatic "Jerome", this article should be axed, and the appearances simply linked in the "Inside References" sections of the respective articles. -YK 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

i dont care if i sound stupid... but can someone plz explain to me the difference between a consensus and a vote? --Acam30 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

oh, and i agree that an inside joke doesnt really need more than two appearances, because if TBC noted it at least twice, its noteworthy on the wiki. --Acam30 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)