Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoPoint.org

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 RESULT. DELETE Rich Farmbrough 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NoPoint.org

Un-notable website, no Alexa rank, advertising--nixie 00:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete probable spam. Their blog put up a "We're in the encyclopedia" entry within moments of the WP article being created. Previous entry before that was in January. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Who would spam a website that you couldn't profit from? Serves as an easy to manage/update FAQ for the site. Keep it! Kaneda
  • Wikipedia isn't here to advertise your site. User:Kaneda's only edits are to the article up for deletion.--nixie 00:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not an advertisement...it's a reference. I highly doubt any random user would go onto wikipedia.org and type in NoPoint.org in the search box. You advertised the website when you put this page up for deletion, now people who never knew that the site existed, and would have never known the site existed are discovering it. The only reason this article is the only one I've editied is because I just signed up for a username on Wikipedia, I planned on editing other articles besides this one. Kaneda
  • There's no reason for Wikipedia to manage, store, serve, and maintain the FAQ for your web site. A site described as a "news blog and messageboard" ought to be able to find someplace to store their own FAQ. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI think this should stay on, these guys are awesome.
  • This vote by User:149.152.23.25
    • ...which apparently Barab's address: see this edit. —Korath (Talk) 05:46, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • We all have same IP's here at university 149.152.23.25 05:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sites on Wikipedia should already be notable when they are listed on WP. When sites are listed for the sole purpose of trying to gain notability through WP, that is advertising. --Tubutler 02:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • To clear up any confusion; the sole purpose of the WP page is to serve as a reference to users/new users of the site; not to gain notability through WP. Again, the only people who will read this article on WP are people who have been to the site. Kaneda
  • What about the AYAZN? Barab
    • Oh, they repost pictures from Maxim Online! Clearly that makes them notable. (Note for sarcasm-impaired: no it doesn't.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable.-gadfium 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Possible spam? Hogwash! Merriam-Webster defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". This article spam? I think not! I think any attempt to find a commerical connection here will be ultimately futile. Keep im mind, this article is a major work-in-progress. The final product will no doubt be a major contribution to academia. Concentrate your efforts on why a search for "pig roast" links to "group sex". - Barab
  • Wikipedia defines spam as "advertisements masquerading as article". Delete. JeremyA 02:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia also admits (from the FAQ) that information from this site "is of course possible for biased, out of date or incorrect". Ergo WP's definition of spam may be innacurate. Barab
  • See above statement. Kaneda
• KEEP!! keep this page it rocks
  • The above from User:69.165.81.222. It is his only edit. —Korath (Talk) 05:42, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. And delete the images, too. —Korath (Talk) 03:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as self-promotion/vanity/non-notable. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow, so many reasons to choose from: vanity, non-encyclopedic, self-promotion, sockpuppet-supported. Android79 03:55, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• If so many people like it, why delete it? And could somebody define "non-encyclopedic" for me? It sounds like a pretty subjective parameter. And by the way, it's not self-promoting since everyone else is promoting it through this topic...Kaneda
  • Subjective? Sure, but we have guidelines. Also, "It's not self-promotion because you guys are promoting it, too" is pretty illogical... Android79 04:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I meant in the sense that a random user would never have stumbled upon the entry for the site on WP - and that people are finding out about the website now because it was put up for deletion - which was never the intention. Kaneda 04:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The "no user would ever have thought to look for it in an encyclopedia" argument has been tried before. It's not exactly a good argument for keeping the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you'll find that the number of users who frequent VfD discussions is pretty small. Sure, I found out about it, but I'm never visiting again. Android79 05:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • There are alot more than I expected...I wasn't aware that this was such a huge past time. I can't believe all these years I spent wasting my life when I could've been doing this! Why didn't someone tell me?? Kaneda 05:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As the wise Mr Spock once said "Emotions are alien to me. I'm a scientist." 149.152.23.25 05:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is quite simply not notable. Is it a fun website for the bunch of friends that it serves? I'm sure it is. But it's not encyclopedic -- meaning that if "the people who like it like it!" was enough to qualify a website then there'd be almost no site that didn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "It is undignified for a woman to play servant to a man who is not hers."
  • You may think it isn't notable now Antaeus, but sometime in the future it could be. Besides that, how does it affect you if it's up or not? The page will have plenty of content in the weeks to come if it stays up, and will be very informative. C'mon, let's keep it up! Kaneda 05:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • 'Uhh... Kaneda, I'd like to point out that.... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This means that if it's not notable now, then it must be deleted now. When it's notable, THEN it can go in and stay in. Wakuseino 07:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, self-promotion. -- Cleduc 05:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "It is more rational to sacrifice one life than six."
• Delete this vanity article. Rhobite 05:35, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Instruments register only through things they're designed to register. Space still contains infinite unknowns."
• Delete, there is NoPoint in this article staying. Not notable, obvious promo. Megan1967 05:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "On my planet, to rest is to rest -- to cease using energy. To me, it is quite illogical to run up and down on green grass, using energy, instead of saving it."
• Strong delete. There was a time... when I considered sparing this article... But all this flaming repulses me. Get it away from me. Ugh. — JIP | Talk 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, and please get 149.152.23.25 from vandalizing this VfD discussion. Radiant! 11:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for advertising. Do you think that you will get more keep votes if you troll here? Jeltz talk 11:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable (even the creators of the article appear to be claiming no-one would search for it), and quoting an actor wearing plastic ears isn't going to convince me either. A website without and wider influence, current or historical, isn't encyclopedic. Average Earthman 12:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I take offense at that. He's not quoting Leonard Nimoy, he's quoting Spock. To us Trekkies (or is it Trekkers nowadays), Spock is much more than a pair of plastic ears. But I still vote delete. — JIP | Talk 17:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You people have no right judge the social and cultural implications of NoPoint.org based on your narrow viewpoint. For example, I do not study astrophysics, yet I do not go and mark the astrophysics page for deletion because the subject is not of immediate importance or interest to me. I understand and respect the fact that there is a community that astrophysics is important to, so I believe they are entitled to a page. Although it may not be apparent to you people sitting in front of your monitors, there is a community that appreciates the existance of a NoPoint.org wiki entry, albiet smaller than the astrophsyics community, yet no less important. Who are you to judge?
  • Note: The above vote is by anon IP 68.109.118.145, whose first and only contribution is to this VfD. Not that that should really surprise anyone, of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The website isn't notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. -Hapsiainen 17:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Does not the bible say "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" 149.152.17.20 17:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the first and only edit from the anon's IP. I have created several articles to Wikipedia. You can put any of them to VfD, if you like. I'm sure that they will survive. -Hapsiainen 18:15, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Just stumbled upon this entry as I was browsing through the VFDs...sure, some people may not think it's worth of an entry into WP, but these guys seem passionate about their site. I say we let them keep the entry. 128.59.149.140 20:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) 128.59.149.140's only edits are to this VfD and blanking User:Kaneda.
• STRONG Delete. These self-important twits seem to think Wikipedia is a free web-hosting service. Their site isn't remotely notable, nor is it likely to become so in the future. I suggest we keep a close eye on User:Kaneda and his team of sock-puppets. They'll probably try to recreate this page after it's been deleted. Binadot 23:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, I strongly recommend that we ban User:Kaneda and his associated tentacles. He's being incredibly obnoxious, changing people's votes, altering their comments, etc. Binadot 04:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and consider enforcement action against the sockpuppets. Chris 23:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: if you are a first-time editor, are affiliated with the nopoint.org website and are planning to vote: wait, and read User:Gamaliel's and my comments near the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Khakain first. Thank you.--Plek 23:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, articles have to be encyclopedic to be included in an encyclopedia. Why don't the sockpuppets realize that their efforts are futile? DaveTheRed 00:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• yuo goons Barab 03:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you guys care so much though? Can someone tell me how this page being on WP affects their daily life? Kaneda 03:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a perfectly fair question. There are two major reasons: (PRECEDENT) In a way, every VfD is a precedent. Nopoint.org has absolutely no Alexa rank at all (proof here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details?url=nopoint.org ) and next-to-no Google presence. If we were to keep this article just to be nice, then literally any website could argue that they deserve an article too, on the basis that Nopoint.org was kept. (REPUTATION) Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia: a tool for people doing research. While articles like this are not personally offensive to us, a reader who finds Wikipedia to be clogged with unimportant, nonsensical, silly, trivial, and useless information is less likely to take wikipedia seriously as an information source. This is detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole and all the editors who work hard to make it a useful information source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I see your point. And thank you for a decent, reasonable explanation. The precedent case makes sense to me, as all the other website articles you guys shut down would want to be brought back up if you kept this one up. But can we make an exception? Ok, haha, probably not. I have to admit though, I was shocked by how passionate people are about shutting this page down. And although I do see your point about how people might not see WP as a serious information source...I'm not really sure how many people would consider WP as one. I use WP just as a hobby, but I would never use WP as a 'serious' source if I was going to write a paper, or even a short article. I can't imagine citing an open source encylcopedia ever as reference...the only thing it would be good for is perhaps references itself to other materials. Just my two cents. And also, I'd suggest some people who browse the VFDs so often read up on these: hobby and recreation. Kaneda 22:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • We are doing our part to improve Wikipedia. One of the ways we do that is by removing articles that do not belong here. DaveTheRed 07:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blatently advertising his own site on wikipedia. Remove immediately. mcbarron
  • This vote was cast by User:68.79.57.94. -Hapsiainen 17:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not even my site son! Kaneda 05:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, insufficiently notable. Jonathunder 04:55, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete -- Curps 05:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A reputable administrator will ignore the delete votes being made by vandals.
  • This voter from IP 82.46.103.4 is definitely a vandal, becase he changed the heading to link to Slashdot.org. ([1]) -Hapsiainen 17:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 22:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kenneth_Alan
  • The above comment by Frontiersman. Frontiersman (talk • contribs) has 5 edits.
    • And I entirely fail to see how an Arb ruling against Kenneth is relevant to the discussion on the encyclopedicity of this article. Radiant! 11:32, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Frontiersman's edits to Ken Firby and User:Kenneth Alan make the claim that they are the same person. This is almost certainly untruth of the highest order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • They ARE the same person! I had no idea he was on WP, we haven't had any contact with Ken since High School. (~4 years) Back in the old days he used to post crazy ramblings on my site ALL the time! What a crazy coincidence that he'd pop up here! See and you guys thought he wasn't really infamous! He just started posting on my site again you can go check it out if you'd like. Small small world! Finding out what Ken's up to made the whole thing worthwhile!! Thanks Wikipedia!! Barab 16:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Barabad0s, that is the corniest shite I have seen in so long. What kind of drugs, please tell me. Also, it would help if they saw the elderly cached remains of your site. Dig up the old board's posts and maybe you'll have a case. I haven't seen them in a while and Ken's not only infamous here, but also on www.bolt.com, www.skadi.net and www.stormfront.org. Frontiersman 18:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Not notable. Advertising. Delete. Kosebamse 20:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that niether me nor Kaneda had any part of the recent vandalism to our page... Barab 21:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That's good, because whoever did ought to be banned immediately. Android79 22:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Well i figured you guys would point your fingers at us Barab 23:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. -- Karada 23:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Q: Who would spam a website that you couldn't profit from? A: The same sort of people with the egos to make a pointless web site about themselves. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • • Wouldn't you call this a personal attack? 149.152.23.25 18:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I might, but I think the point was that the other attacks were unsigned. If they're clearly attributed to someone, then it's easy to tell who's making the attack. In other words, register and log in when you post if you want even your personal attacks to be taken seriously. Android79 18:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Further more, I'd call it an answer to the question. If your argument is going to be "Our motivation isn't commercial profit, so clearly our motivation was a good one, instead!" then you don't act surprised or as if you've been grievously wronged when people point out that other poor motivations beside the profit motive exist -- and highlight the evidence for those motivations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Egos for having our own webpage? You have your own webpage, you f'ing hypocrite. [[2]] At least on ours we don't have the ego to post our "professional experiences." And by the way, learn some HTML. I made a webpage back when I was in 8th grade (nearly 10 years ago) that looked infinetly better than yours. It'd be a good hobby for you, since you're obviously not getting anywhere with your sketches. Unsigned personal attacks by 160.39.202.137 (talk • contribs), whose edits are all to the article or to this VfD.
    • I believe you missed the word "pointless" in the original argument. Chris 22:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • We use it to keep in touch with each other after moving away to college (columbia, northeastern, wpi, ccsu etc)
        • BAM! Alas the point of the webpage. I know it's kinda confusing, it being called nopoint.org and all...but don't let that trip you up. Kaneda 02:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • This is commendable, but it doesn't mean that the site merits an article. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment OH BAM! 149.152.23.25 05:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Tjc 10:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Generally harmless, but still basically vanity. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, self promotion. Jonathunder 04:51, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Delete and delete - David Gerard 11:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Others have said it all, a waste of bits. Fawcett5 02:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable; vanity. Wikipedia isn't here for free advertising. Dpark 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Halidecyphon 17:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable, vanity. Jasoncart 20:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - probable vanity page. Article text doesn't lead one to believe the subject is notable in any way. Psychonaut 01:51, 13 Mar 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.