Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongfire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was the result of this debate is delete, even with all of the sockpuppets. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 1, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

[edit] Hongfire

This article doesn't contain useful facts of any kinds, it's just a disguised ad. Please refrain to make a wiki entry for every asian site around. If it's about subculture write an article about it. -Oink- People don't start signing others comment with fictious names, or I'll have to register (the history shows your IP anyway mmmkl, you dimwit )82.231.37.93 06:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.37.93 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2005 Jun 22

  • I vote for deletion. this article doesn't fit in the "encyclopedia" wikipedia. also the edit war would never end if the article remains cause there are different views on some topics where none of both sides want to lose (see edit-history on loli-terms). -Atachi:- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.89.50 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 2005 Jun 22
  • I vote for deletion as it has nothing to do with factual, fair and neutral portrayal of facts. -maohayato- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.90.200 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 2005 Jun 22
  • "All your base are belong to us!" -BOiNG!- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.221.54 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 2005 Jun 22
  • Delete. Superfluous article. It is on yellow press-, but not Wikipedia-level. KidSteel 08:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Misinformation -The Bug- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.223.4 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2005 Jun 22
  • Vote for deletion, if he/she or they want to discuss about us in other forums we have no problem, but not here, though those kind of articles is somehow always bias based or lead to edit war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmonthes (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2005 Jun 22
  • its literary art deleting this would be a crime, the poster is an extreme good writer why cant you see that. just because it doesnt pamper everyone doesnt mean its not true indeed he put hs own views but then again it gave the article a lively touch it was thereby given character which isnt a bad thing and if someone would write it the guy that wrote it would be the best candidate. you have to accept that the dude has talent. so i am against the deletiton of this article. -zerebubuth- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerebubuth (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2005 Jun 22
  • Your literary art is another one's garbage. Wikipedia is about informative topics. There is none in this article, except for the ones already part of HF. Like I said, don't make a freaking wikipedia article for every website with a forum and torrents, no matter how lively you think it is. It's not about HF, it's about putting some quality in the place where you're writing this article -Oink- 82.231.37.93 06:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.37.93 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2005 Jun 22
  • I vote (haha...democracy at work...) pointless. is that on the ballot? -chompy- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.163.63 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2005 Jun 23
  • Delete The article is neither objective nor unbiased. But if you remove the biased parts, all that will be left is an advertising. -Soran(Hongfire screen name) Hayami 03:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, non-encyclopaedic. Any particular reason no one is signing posts in this vote? Kevin/Last1in 01:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I smell a crapflood/invasion/vendetta! GNAA or Something Awful Forums? Anyway, yes, delete the article, since it's biggest claim to fame for most people who have heard of it would be it's torents section, and that's been down for a while (and the forseeable future). humblefool® 02:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. And yes, it seems all the unsigned voters have suspiciously similar writing styles. — Ливай | ☺ 02:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. Too many sockpuppets. Gamaliel 02:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As comes up with Alexa rating of 22 271 and is just a BitTorrent site. Wikipedia is not a web directory and this network has yet to achieve any notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote for deletion. Hongfire is a file-sharing site. Having a encyclopedic notoriety would only make matters worse. -Adust Wanderer- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.108 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2005 Jun 23
  • Delete.This article got too much inaccurate informations,it just don't fit in encyklopedia entry. Mmmkl 06:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 08:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established, wikipedia is not a web directory. JamesBurns 10:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a web directory, and notability not established.-Splash 15:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, and then delete the sockpuppets. --Scimitar 16:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete mmmm i'm having sockpuppets for dinner tonight! --Phroziac (talk) 18:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Wikiacc (talk) 21:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - rubbish endorsed by either sockpuppets or intentional vandalism? - Skysmith 08:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Count the sock-puppet votes, friend. They want to delete the article. --Scimitar 13:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So noted (must have been too tired...) Still, delete. Block the sockpuppets no matter what they do - Skysmith 15:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least delete the original article : it was a vandal article or simply calumny not "ad" propaganda.The "Delete" votes of members of a community should be treated differently, if the article seems to be pure calumny.The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets... --Neuromancien June 28, 2005 23:30 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.