Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBHQ

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. Joyous 01:22, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CBHQ

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 15:06, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • KEEP Doesn't need to have notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so should contain all things, notable or not. JoeBaldwin 15:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • As the owner of the site in question, I found the original article to be questionable and riddled with inaccuracies. I managed to correct a few elements so it is looking tidier. Ultimately if it can be refined a little further then I would vote to keep it. With regards notability, CBHQ did achieve a great deal on the internet including uncovering 419 scammers, exposing security flaws in guestbooks, etc. cbhq.co.uk 15:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The umpteenth web site for self-absorbed teen nerds who think trolling equals notability. Yawn. --Plek 17:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-notable forumcruft. Delete. RickK 20:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok our banned former members are coming here and editing the thing to make me look a cunt every 5 seconds so I think we may as well delete it. cbhq.co.uk 22:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP This is interesting reading for many people. (81.86.255.0 23:01, 2005 Jan 27 according to history. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC))
  • Delete ^^^ by "editing it to make me look a c*nt", he means "editing it so it tells the truth about what a nasty piece of work I am". (84.66.99.8 23:23, 2005 Jan 27 according to history. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC))
  • Delete the article and the vandals it's bringing over here... Long articles don't equal notability... and as it's been said, this is forumcruft just like all that Something Awful-related mess that we've gotten VfDs on recently. --Idont Havaname 23:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trollcruft. —Korath (Talk) 03:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 08:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The history of CBHQ is a controversial topic, and the "vandals" are mostly sticking to just this one page, as they have personal issues with Williams which have yet to be settled. I have added a note to the page saying that before any changes are made they must be approved on the discussion page. I hope that this is enough to save the page, as it is an interesting story and definitely worthy of Wikipedia. CBHQ has had an impact on the Internet in many ways (e.g highlighting guestbook flaws) and is therefore notable. - JoeBaldwin (posted without logging in at college) (212.219.92.98 13:22, 2005 Jan 28 according to history. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC))
  • Delete as utterly and completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • A long-winded description of the infighting amongst a small band of non-notable people in a non-notable forum, given in mind-numbing detail. Delete. Uncle G 16:38, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Apologies for our internal problems being brought over here when it's not really something that you guys need to deal with. Joe's been kicked from cbhq as frankly everyone's fed up of him and his ridiculous flouncing, and general weirdness.

  • Delete. And then delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Wikipedia is not a webguide. Indrian 23:49, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this throughly boring trollcruft. Please. Edeans 08:11, 1 Feb 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.