Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlmightyLOL

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 07:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AlmightyLOL

Delete - Non-notable forum or whatever. Prod removed, etc, same as usual.... Wickethewok 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Edit-conflict Delete - non-notable, Alexa ranking upwards of 1,500,000, 700 members. Looks like the creator's not interested in discussion, either, from the tag being removed repeatedly.Tony Fox 06:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the 'dont delete this u faggets' on the talk page as the reasoning against speedying doesn't do much for it either. Tony Fox 07:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Ted 07:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Please block the IPs and members vandalizing and removing tags from this article repeatedly and constantly. Wickethewok 07:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is meant to be and objective represenation of a website growing in popularity.
  Unfortunately, certain wikipedia users decided to vadalize it. I and others have been attempting to restore impartiallity and some level of accuracy and decency. Please excuse any accidental deletion mistakes that ocured in the vandaizing.--Almightylol 07:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and preferably speedy delete per A7 "groups of people". Obvious self-promotion. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment I thought for sure when I saw the above comment by Wickethewok I would find a thread encouraging people to vandalise and remove tags on the site, but no. Instead apparently people saw the link to the Wikipedia page and decided to have some fun. They seemed to me (and I will probably forever go down in AlmightyLOL lore for saying this) to be a bunch of drunks and stoners sitting around spewing nonsense all day. Not-notable, vanispamcruftisement (just look at the ID of the creator, and of the comment above - do you really think he's interested in NPOV?). The "Best Member" section is probably (un-)worthy of BJAODN. Interference of deletion process also doesn't help case. Just plain bad. Morgan Wick 07:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article seems to be a vessel for self-promotion, more than anything else. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Violently delete, WP:VSCA. Sandstein 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Edit-conflict delete- vanispamcruftisement... i love that word :). Reyk _YO! 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• CommentWell, this is indeed humorus. To be fair, you should recognize the FACT that I happened to be the most impartial member of this (large and growing) group of mostly "drunks and stoners." Excuse me, but who are you all to judge the efforts of a user attempting to save an impartial representation of a human community. Frankly, it's of no concrn just how drnk of unintelligent these people may be. Who are all of you to decide that they don't deserve to be recorded in history?--Almightylol 07:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT for advertising or self-promotion. If you can show notability for your forum under WP:WEB then fire away, and it will be considered. Tony Cox 07:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Echo Tony Cox. Morgan Wick 07:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete,, Yeah, a closed forum that hates newcomers is really intrested in self promotion. Get over yourselves, how many people do you think will ever see the page?
• Delete per nom.--DCAnderson 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.