Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumpshack

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 delete. FireFox 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bumpshack

I'm sure the "college gentlemen" who called it home between 1999-2003 remember it quite fondly, but that doesn't give it encyclopedic notability. Lots of unverifiable opinion about how great the bachelors were and how they really drew the ladies. Textbook vanity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. A house a few people lived at in college and had fun in is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --Wingsandsword 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Probably lying about the ladies. -- JJay 01:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article, delete content (so delete for the redlink, but allow it to be recreated). There's probably enough publicly-accessible info on the topic to produce a verifiable page. See here. —Simetrical (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) After consideration and discussion with Zoe, change vote to delete. The website is, to my knowledge, the only source for Bumpshack's existence, and it is not reliable. —Simetrical (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify: it is my opinion, as explained elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not need notability requirements, and in this instance my opinion is not contrary to policy. —Simetrical (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely unencyclopedic even if there were 11 zillion verifiable sources available about it. In 5 years, nobody will care that a bunch of college kids had a crash pad. Hell, nobody will care in a year. Or even six months. Bumpshack gets 475 Google hits, of which most are linkspam farms. Unverifiable and utterly unimportant drivel. Borders on speedy fodder. FCYTravis 04:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, verifiability does not matter when it comes to nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement page mixed with vanity. Kusma (討論) 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad; I am open to reconsidering the issue if the BumpHotties so request. Billbrock 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - interesting site, but nn.--SarekOfVulcan 09:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You have to be one of the original five people to care a flying rat's behind about this house. — JIP | Talk 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Um, doesn't need to be notable in its field to have an article? Foppery. Proto t c 10:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP. the wub "?!" 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete Not really notable enough, and that's coming from an inclusionist - Wezzo 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JIPs entirely accurate assessment. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- using is spamming other articles with this link - Tεxτurε 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, non-encyclopedic. --Stormie 02:42, 18 December 2005 (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.