Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAI2U

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. The nomination presents a clear challenge: unverifiable claims. No one has provided anything like a reliable source, and testimony of wikipedia editors about something's notability is insufficient. As to redirection to list of shock sites, while redirects are cheap, they aren't free, and an article having the word "list" in its title doesn't provide exemption from the verification criterion. - brenneman^{L} 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HAI2U

Appears to be nn website, and only has an article here because of its shock value. We can't keep an article here based only on unverifiable claims; this one has an Alexa rank of 429,006 (not safe from work), so I doubt that this is very popular based on that data. (The site peaked in Alexa rank in November 2005 at around 93,000 Also NSFW). Delete. Mangojuice 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to List of shock sites. Kotepho 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of shock sites. All the information is there anyway. Foolish Child 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an important shock site, verifiable. For great justice. 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, does not fall under any of the real criteria for deletion, IMHO. --Knucmo2 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• What about WP:WEB? Mangojuice 14:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of shock sites. It's there already. NTK 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect (or, failing that, delete). Alexa rank is pretty poor, and the article is unreferenced and even says "The website falsely claims that it has been referenced by Time Magazine and The New York Times". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of shock sites. The immensely more well known shock sites, like tubgirl or goatse are redirected, so why have a seperate page soley for this? --68.60.18.222 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect (or, failing that, delete) per Andrew Lenahan, is about right. "Word of mouth" is just code for unverifiable. Melchoir 07:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean-up. I'm changing my vote. This website is noteable, however the article does need clean-up and more information. Foolish Child 12:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes you think it's notable? Melchoir 06:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought it was notable from the start, just that the article in its current state provides little that isn't on its List of shock sites entry. And I believe its notable because of the vast number of people that know of it. Foolish Child 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree it's probably notable. My problem with it has more to do with WP:V. Can anyone back up the popularity of this with an outside source? I doubt it. Mangojuice 14:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. RexNL 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, quite well known shock site. bbx 13:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a very notable site for people who don't live in their own sheltered little worlds. Skinmeister 18:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough. Rhobite 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why is there an article about a picture of a woman puking on a guy's penis? Worthless. If you keepers like it so much, maybe you should print it out and frame it. Erik the Rude 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this shock site is notable enough Yuckfoo 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable shocksite... not quite as well known as Goatse guy but damn close.  ALKIVAR™ 05:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The List of "Shock Site" is enough and already too much for my taste. Just an explanation what "Shock Sites" are (no links) should be sufficient--Roy-SAC 07:27, 17 April 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.