Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellatight Site

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hellatight Site

Completely non-notable forumcruft tripe supported by vandals. Gets all of 9 Google hits, has no Alexa ranking and fewer than 80 members. Speedy deleted by myself, User:Dpbsmith requested that I nominate it for deletion. I still think it's speedyable material, but I'll take great pleasure in watching this go down in flames on AFD. FCYTravis 19:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Please put all extended comments on other people's votes on this article's discussion page, not here. Please also remember no personal attacks is official Wikipedia policy. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka 22:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Travis's hate filled diatribe aside, I would like to point out that the history of the current site stretches back beyond the current site itself. I would estime a good 100 members or so have not yet made the move to the new site for various reasons. I will not argue the point that it is not physically a huge site at this point but there is content there and there had been questions as to the history of it that I felt the entry answered.

• Delete, forum vanity. Wikipedia is not an index to every page on the web. —Cryptic (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, forum vanity, per Cryptic. Nandesuka 19:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, forum vanity, per Cryptic. --NeilN 19:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Forumcruft. Wikipedia is not a web directory. android79 19:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Cryptic. Note that Hellduck5000 identifies himself as "Pinchdice", the founder of the board. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Please do not let vandals of the hellatightsite entry (whose actions were NOT condoned by hellatightsite) be just cause for its deletion. The entry on your site serves to advise anyone interested the lengths required to create a webpage and is therefore a worthy/valid addition to wikepedia.com. Thank you, gared111 12:44pm 5 September 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.67 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 September 2005
• Keep Travis' own profile states that he plays with the delete button. It is my opinion that he abuses some self-perceived authority in contrast with Wikipedia:Administrators. Furthermore, the article was neither an advertisement nor SPAM. It is merely an article about the history of a website. The original author is well known within the community of Howard Stern-related bulletin boards. Simply because the site is one month old doesn't mean the article about the history has no merit or validity. If you want to argue relevance, there are many articles, some that FCYTravis edits and supports, that have no merit or validity to me. If you want to argue "vanity," certainly under semantics anyone who posts an article here does so for vain reasons. The first person to post about the 7/7 London Bombings probably felt good having "broke" the story on Wikipedia. For FCYTravis to use "vandalism" as a cause for deletion is a petty and weak argument. Some, like myself, could view abuse of access as a form of vandalism. STFI Alumni 20:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest Delete Possible: Not only is it cruft, which is good enough for a delete, but there's the meatpuppet/sockpuppet brigade here. (Hellduck5000 hasn't made any edits outside of the page in question or this vfd, STFI Alumni only has 3, and the rest of the keepers are IP Addresses which are automatically eliminated because Anon IP+VfD Page=Sockpuppet 100% of the time in my eyes.)

Kudos to Travis on how he's keeping cool despite the puppet attacks. Also to the newbie/s, please read WP:civil and WP:NOT before you make any more comments. With how it's going so far, you're just making things harder on yourself/selves. Karmafist 20:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• A "hate-filled" delete for non-notable cruft from me. Sdedeo 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Forumcruftvanity, supported by editors who might like to consider that being more than a little belligerent is extraordinarily unlikely to persuade anyone here to change their vote. Reasoned persuasion, on the other hand, well, you never know. And to the bureaucracy side of this: sometimes there's really no need to generate it where it isn't needed. -Splash 21:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, way too many sock puppets and too many attacks on a valid AfD listing. Vanity, nn. Zoe 21:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• OMGWTFBBQPWNN00BS or Strong Delete --fpo 21:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP-Personally I think it's a shame that someone who "has fun with the delete button" gets to decide what's mature on this issue. Note: here comes the "this guy only has an edit on this page" argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.97.185 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2005
  • Hey all. I just wanted to make the argument that this guy only has an edit on this page. Sdedeo 22:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• EXTREME Delete Ashibaka (tock) 00:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable forum for sockpuppets. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey I never heard of most of those things in your Hopefully Not VfD bait section. Does that make them not notable? Also what are sockpuppets anyway? I think the people who spend time visiting the site might find that a tad insulting.
• Obvious delete. Gamaliel 00:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE non notable G Clark 01:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Barely registers on Google, no Alexa rank and currently around 80 members. Even if there's still around 100 members to find the new location it fails WP:WEB guidelines miserably. Websites need to reach a sufficient audience before getting an article on Wikipedia. In this case, I believe Travis made a good call in deleting this. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Marcus22 12:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.--Isotope23 13:09, 6 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.