Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shit funnel

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. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shit funnel

Claims to be an internet meme. Talk page reveals "writers" are making it read like less of an advert... but making links clickable isn't the way to do it, I'd've thought. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 'We' aren't trying to advertise anything. Only documenting the internet. But if there is a proper way to link readers to a video, then it would be appreciated to know this.--Bonnar 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am familiar with this video's rise in popularity and have edited the article with no ulterior motive. I know poop-eating with links to a shock site isn't exactly orthodox but I do believe this is suitable wiki material. --j

• Delete non-notable meme. It began on one site and appears to only encompass same site. IrishGuy 20:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a curio cabinet of digital media. Brian G. Crawford 20:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. very spammish. Geedubber 20:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What is spammish about it? It is an article referring to a cultural byproduct of the internet. And there are numerous other 'digital media' articles on wikipedia. Besides, it doesn't just refer to the internet format of it, but to the real life enactment of the suggested scenario.--Bonnar 21:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

comment Every single link about this subject goes to the same website. That means that either this is spam, or the subject is so eminently not notable that it is only mentioned on one website. Either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. IrishGuy 21:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Self-acknowledged non-notable. Notability first then article. Don't use Wikipedia as your step-stone to notability. That's not what it's here for. Rklawton 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am not even affiliated with that website in any way. Not a member of the forums or anything. That's rather insulting to suggest that I am trying to acquire notability.--Bonnar 21:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Danny Lilithborne 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I got 81 unique Google hits, and of those none within the first three pages referred to this supposed internet phenomenon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while weird, I don't see this meeting.. any of our standards. Kotepho 23:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --Conrad Devonshire 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 05:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Shift funnel" gives less than 700 hits at Google. Still far from being a cultural phenomenon, it is barely a minor development. -- ReyBrujo 06:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Bachrach44 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and also pretty disgusting. Mr. Lefty 01:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment for reference, there are no corroborating links for this article (yet) because there doesn't seem to be many other sites willing to host these videos. I personally have seen them linked on wtfpeople.com, goregasm.com, leenks.com, and blogwars.com off the top of my head, but all links lead back to the original versions on amplovesyou.net. Entensity.net even hosted one video, but the amplovesyou.net watermark remained. I believe if this article remains on wikipedia more people aware of the trend may surface and reveal the source of this material. --j—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.125.202 (talk • contribs)

Comment as Rklawton noted above Don't use Wikipedia as your step-stone to notability. That's not what it's here for. If you don't have notability, you don't get to use Wikipedia to garner notibility. That isn't the point. IrishGuy 07:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment wikipedia is not being used to garner notability as I fully believe these videos have a history that extends beyond amplovesyou.net (it is a shock/porn blog, not a producer of adult content. There must be a source). The purpose of wiki is to introduce new topics, leaving them out in the open for all users knowledgeable in the subject to expand upon, and finally with the aid of those who are capable, build a reference that is wholly informative and accurate. Simply because I and Bonnar are not gurus on the matter does not mean users familiar with other aspects of this sudden internet phenomenon will not arise.

I know it seems silly but I'm a legit fan of the weird/shock/bizarre entertainment genre and it is plainly apparent to those of us in the know that the Toilet Olympics video is the equivalent of "the new tubgirl" in terms of popularity and ridiculousness. This is history in the making, this is one of the most atrocious depictions to ever be on the brink of mainstream exposure in the history of the internet or even the world, and it most certainly deserves to be documented by an unbiased party like wikipedia. --j —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.125.202 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a sudden internet phenomenon, no matter how many times you claim it is. If it was a phenomenon there would be references to it all over...because that is what a phenomenon is. Tubgirl was a phenomenon. Goatse was a phenomenon. This isn't. IrishGuy 17:15, 4 May 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.