Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hellatight Site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please comment here, not on the voting page.

If desired, I would be willing to edit it to make it more appropriate before resubmitting, if that is an issue. Those of you voting forumcruft or whatever need to actually read the entry. Yes, forums are talked about. No, it is not about them except in relation of them to the site. Yes, they are a major part, but they are by no means the most important part. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hellduck5000 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC) edited

• • I don't have authority, I have a mop and bucket which I use to clean Wikipedia of cruft. From an impersonal perspective, the article is nominated for deletion based on its lack of encyclopedicity. The fact that forum administrators and users initiated personal attacks simply makes it that much easier to click delete. FCYTravis 20:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • FCYTravis, one user "attacked" you. For you to type that that made it that much easier to click delete, especially when your own profile states you like to "play" with the delete button, is pathetic. Explain to me how it has less "encyclopedicity" or is more of an advertisement than Microsoft, Texaco, Walmart Ebaumsworld or Something Aweful. Simply because the member base isn't 30,000 people doesn't mean it lacks validity. Simply because you've never heard of the site or the author doesn't mean it lacks validity. Just because you're unaware of the year long history leading up to today, FCYTravis, doesn't mean your "playing with the delete button" is valid. I've never heard of the auto racing team you're affiliated with, does that give me license to nominate their entry for deletion?
    • And to User:Jpgordon, I'm almost at a loss for words at the ignorance of your post. Oh my God, imagine the audacity of the owner of a site, who might actually have the clearest memory of the chain of events in the history of a site, entering an article about his site on the Wikipedia. I pose to you the question, if I, as not the owner, posted it, would that be acceptable to you?
      • No wonder this is on AfD. You don't know how to act! --fpo 23:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • And to those claiming it's forum vanity: It's not. There is a forum. The forum is not the main focus of the website. User:STFUAlumni 20:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, the fact that the member base isn't 30,000 people is exactly *why* it lacks encyclopedic validity on Wikipedia. Everything2 is over there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and maintains certain encyclopedic standards, and one of those is notability. We have articles on many, many, many, MANY things that paper encyclopedias don't, because, of course, we're WP:NOT paper. But we don't have articles on everything. We require that something be independently notable before it's included. Had your site had thousands of members, major media mentions, widespread popularity on the Internet, a reasonable Alexa ranking, etc. like Ebaumsworld, Something Awful and Cockeyed.com, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If you wish to dispute this aspect of policy, I invite you to begin a discussion on the Wikipedia:Village pump about the criteria used to include or exclude an article. This is nothing personal related to the site's content. It's simply a judgement on the encyclopedic merits. I laughed when I saw the main page, you guys have got some pretty funny stuff. But it's not Wikipedia material - yet. When and if Hellatightsite.com someday achieves the sort of notability that the sites you mentioned hold, then by all means we'll welcome an article on it. FCYTravis 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • You're missing the point. The same concept website existed long before Hellatight Site did. As stated in the entry, it existed as Bombiraq.info prior. Due to the obvious perceived limitations of "bombiraq," the name was changed. Also, Alexa scores mean absolutely nothing and are relatively unreliable because it requires a toolbar to be downloaded and used, which produces skewed results. The last I knew Alexa only worked with IE. Every forum I've been on I've counted numerous threads suggesting people use a different browser. STFUAlumni 21:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Your comments could be considered no less inflamatory than those FCYTravis was faced with. As for my having only 3 edits, I have used this site extensively for a year but today was the first time I registered. I suppose that lacks credibity, also. STFUAlumni 21:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• • "Hate-filled?"  :D Wow, that hurts. STFUAlumni 21:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Please quote where belligerence has been used. Thank you. If my opinion that someone is abusing their power is considered belligerent, I fear you're mistaken. Please reread the comments by FYCTravis, and then read his profile. Playing with the delete button doesn't strike anyone else as immature and abusive? STFUAlumni 21:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I still think it's speedyable material, but I'll take great pleasure in watching this go down in flames on AFD This quote is from the administrator in question. It seems relatively beligerant to me, far moreso than most people arguing for it. The people arguing for this site are people defending the message its deletion would send. This is no users AOL or Tripod site. Nobody created this entry to say OMG CHECK OUT MY SITE AND FORUMS!!!1. This is a history of where the site came from, created to fill the demand of people who have asked privately. I have better things to do than waste a half hour of my time creating an entry for an internet site, except that people have asked. Their information should be second to these cries of FORUMCRUFT or VANITY by people who can assume my reasons for this entry all they want. They are not seeing the trees through the forest. There is a lot of information already here that is UTTERLY useless to me personally, but I would never claim it should be deleted just because it doesn't appeal to me personally. I strongly doubt this entry is going to negatively affect this site in any way. Rather, it shows very clearly how this particular site evolved to people who would come looking to find out how.--Hellduck5000 21:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The above user called me a "faggot" in response to my original deletion of the article. Given that, I think it's the height of restraint to simply say I'm looking forward to making it going away. As for the rest of your post, those are all very worthy goals. That's why Everything2 and WikiCities exist. If you want to write a history of your site via Wiki, great! By all means, do it, either through those two systems or by installing MediaWiki on your server. But it's not a proper encyclopedic subject for Wikipedia. FCYTravis 21:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Only on my forums where we call each other faggots and jerks and morons all the time. Here I think I have been very civil :) Also you are welcome at any time.

As far as not being a proper encyclopedic subject, I say why not? There ARE people who were interested. Why must people who have no interest in this site decide for everybody else that this entry lacks merit? Maybe these are farther reaching questions then belong in this discussion, but it seems to me that the atmosphere around here has become a little too much like a paper encyclopedia and is missing out on what also seems to me to be its real purpose, to offer people knowledge on what they come here seeking, especially when it pertains to internet oriented stuff.

• • • • • No he did not. Look at his post on the forum, he never promoted vandalizing your profile. I've "known" the guy for a year and a lying hypocrite he isn't. Please don't make accusations and allegations that you can't prove. STFUAlumni 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, look, you're trouble here is that lobbing accusations around just won't get you nowhere. If FCYTravis was playing with his delete button and erred on the side of deletion, the problem is long since history as your article has come back — at FCYTravis' own behest. It's there for all to see. It will, however, be deleted again in a few days time unless you stick to your suggestion back up top: you said you'd work on the article. AfD debates last 5 days, so you'd better get cracking. Just as a guide, it needs some serious opinion-removal work: you finish by saying "in my opinion". In an encyclopedic article, your opinion matters not at all: WP:NPOV and WP:POV will guide you in that resepect. If you make a significant clean up effort on the article and show why your site is special among the 8 billion that Google looks at, then perhaps you'll change things. Meantime, the site is just one of 8 billion. -Splash 21:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Good advice, thank you. STFUAlumni 21:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Frankly, I'm appalled at the apparant elitism demonstrated by some here. The author of the article and the owner of the site is well known within a certain demographic. Simply because 5-6 people are unfamiliar with that demographic should not determine the fate of the article. If you were to visit and register at some of the other sites mentioned, sternchat.com, for example, you would find an overwhelming number of people who are familiar with the author/owener and you would further find that he is well respected there. Unfortunately, sternchat.com has prohibiations against posting links to "competing websites." It seems to me that basing the worthiness of the article on the memberbase of the forum and Alexa stats is a grave mistake. I state again that Alexa stats require the use of the Alexa Toolbar by visitors. The site had a previous incarnation. Surely the owner of the site is not expected to post AWStats to justify the presence of an acticle here. STFUAlumni 21:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, you can just go to www.alexa.com and type in the domain name you're interested in, and it gives you a whole bunch of information. I don't have any toolbars installed (I hate them all), and the website worked fine for me. Rather than endlessly writing essaylets about the article in here, why not go and work on the article instead. That is the only way you're likely to change any minds at preset. -Splash 21:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have any toolbars, and I can get alexa rankings. A forum I visit has a ranking of 4,544,891 -- I know it's not notable, but I also know it isn't doing anything to try to attract an alexa ranking. Zoe 21:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're misunderstanding. The recording is done via a user downloadable toolbar installed into IE. Alexa does not measure at the server end, they are fed stats from users. STFUAlumni 21:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Translation: If no users with the Alexa Toolbar EVER visit a site, the site will have NO Alexa ranking. - STFUAlumni 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)