Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bum Rape Island
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bum Rape Island
This article is not quite encyclopedic, not notable, unneccesarily vulgar, there are no links to it, etc... Should be Deleted -- Rmrfstar 01:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Google says 9 results for "Bum Rape Island". Too low for a comic book (or parody thereof) to claim notability. -- BD2412 talk 01:52, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
- Delete Low Google score, No Alexa rank at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and we are not here to help spread jokes. Geogre 02:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree with Geogre -- Mysidia 07:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete It has no importance to anything, and is not noticable. Schrodingers catsup 08:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Some really surreal bits. "Bob swung his fist and connected just as the sentry started to turn into a penis." Good stub, describes the website adequately. Needs categorization. Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a list of websites or website synopses. In addition, the user that posted this has done many other vandalism edits that have been reverted, including posting links to "bumrapeisland"'s website in various entries. Strong Delete. jglc | t | c 17:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I've no doubt it was posted for the purpose of vandalism. However this is quite an innovative website and I can't think of a good reason to delete it. "Wikipedia isn't a list of..." arguments always seem to me to miss the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so it should document interesting websites. What is interesting and what is not interesting, of course, is a matter on which we can differ. I happen to find that kind of weirdness interesting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems that a lot of people find it uninteresting, though. This site is one step below an internet meme, and that's about the cutoff for internet notoriety, IMHO. jglc | t | c 18:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I don't expect many people to find it interesting. I like it though. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I've no doubt it was posted for the purpose of vandalism. However this is quite an innovative website and I can't think of a good reason to delete it. "Wikipedia isn't a list of..." arguments always seem to me to miss the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so it should document interesting websites. What is interesting and what is not interesting, of course, is a matter on which we can differ. I happen to find that kind of weirdness interesting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DELETE just dumb
- Comment. In response to Tony, who I think makes some good points, I would have to say that the notability is more important than interest. Wikipedia does not cover every thing that is interesting to someone, rather only notable, important, influential ones and this page is none of those. The site is literally a joke. Geogre and jglc make good points. The article says nothing about the website that is significant, it just mentions its existence. Every single website on the internet does not deserve its own Wikipedia article because it is interesting to a few people, unless the site actually has a significant impact on something. -- Rmrfstar 05:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I find myself in full agreement with all the arguments in favor of deletion, except the particular one that this article is deletable. This is in my opinion a truly remarkable site, a boys' illustrated war story transformed into a grotesquely absurd and comic sadomasochistic fantasy. While I understand that there are many samizdat works similar to this in Japanese manga and anime, I believe that this work may well be sui generis in European folk art. It has much of the exuberance and energy of obscene toilet graffiti. So I just cannot bring myself to vote for deletion. This is quite simply the most remarkable website I have ever encountered. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Rmrfstar's argument. carmeld1 06:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It is an 'interesting' site, Wikipedia loses interest if it becomes an 'academic only' encyclopedia instead of a encyclopedia that is broad as can be in scope. --ShaunMacPherson 12:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The argument is not whether or not the site is academic or interesting; it is whether it is notable enough in its interest to be retained. jglc | t | c 13:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Not necessarily. There is no consensus for website notability, and I'm sure we have many non-notable websites that have been kept. There is room in Wikipedia policy for the exercise of discretion. This website is indisputably non-notable but this doesn't mean it should necessarily be deleted. If it's deleted I'll probably include it in an article about the use of graffiti in art and the artistic role of vandalism. From toilet walls to Orton and Halliwell's defaced library books, it's a very interesting subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I like that idea, actually. Why not add a subsection (essentially a merge) to an artistic vandalism article (is there one? If not, it sounds like a wonderful idea) and redirect from the current article. I don't feel as though it deserves a standalone entry, but it would be a great case study. jglc | t | c 15:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- comment That is true, but why not set the notibility bar very low, just above vanity pages? There seems to be enough room to accomodate interesting yet esoteric pages. In fact I'd allow vanity pages as long as they were verifiable as notibility it seems is a POV concept that is apt to be abused esp. when censoring controversial ideas. Best we stay way from 'notibility' in my mind. --ShaunMacPherson 13:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Not necessarily. There is no consensus for website notability, and I'm sure we have many non-notable websites that have been kept. There is room in Wikipedia policy for the exercise of discretion. This website is indisputably non-notable but this doesn't mean it should necessarily be deleted. If it's deleted I'll probably include it in an article about the use of graffiti in art and the artistic role of vandalism. From toilet walls to Orton and Halliwell's defaced library books, it's a very interesting subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The argument is not whether or not the site is academic or interesting; it is whether it is notable enough in its interest to be retained. jglc | t | c 13:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- keep please agree with sidway Yuckfoo 20:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Keeping an open encyclopedia is like keeping an open mind - it should not be so open that one's brains fall out. Denni☯ 03:18, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
- Delete. Boring, badly done. And even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't be encyclopedic. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete too few google hits for a site. Grue 17:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
