Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shtickless

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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shtickless

Vanity page for online community Bjones 04:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't seem remotely encyclopedic at this point.Bjones 04:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy if possible. --Nlu 05:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "our forum is totally important" is obnoxious even with sarcasm. Ashibaka (tock) 06:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shtickless but not sockless, apparently. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Too bad that's a proposed plan, buddy. Shtickless has a big base.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.83.60 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Speedy, preferably, per nom. --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Dbchip 09:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I just wish it was worth a patent nonsense tag. Stifle 11:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above and because of the sockpuppets. 23skidoo 13:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, and web guides aren't even forum guides. The sockpuppets only make it worse and make this look more and more fit for speedy deletion as vandalism than regular deletion for representing and unencyclopedic topic. Geogre 13:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this vanity ad. No context, no notability. Only thing it has lots of is sock puppets. Ifnord 21:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant vanity and spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 10:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While not quite the most relevant content, there seems to be a certain amount of support here. Hoopefully it will be slightly changed and improved. I say we give them a chance. Dabroom 21:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • User has only two edits, one here, the other at Talk:Shtickless. - Mike Rosoft 21:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that votes from unregistered users, as well as ones from recently created user accounts which seem to have been registered to influence the results of the discussion, will likely be disregarded. - Mike Rosoft 22:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 03:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity advertisement. *drew 09:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned comments/votes

• Keep, forever if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.72.107 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

One of many keep votes where the only cotribs are here --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, without question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.83.60 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, User's only contribs are here, and complaining about here.... --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Disrespect, no more and stop taking yourselves so seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.6.190 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User's only contribs are mostly this AfD, and the article in question, and vandalising User:Bjones--VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, you have a page for shtick, but not for shtickless? So much for impartiality!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.43.244 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User's only contribs are this AfD, and the article in question,, oh, and shtick is up for AfD Here just FYI... --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this page, you uptight bastards. Shtickless SAVES LIVES!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.66.109 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User's only contrib is here --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• honestly, if i REALLY wanted to, youre right, i could. i just want to see if better options open up. im still being patient for now... maybe ill form a relationship... who knows. i dont wanna get too deep into it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.79.55 (talk • contribs)
• KEEP There's plenty of stuff "in development" on this site. Why be hasty? Give these guys some time, and maybe suggestions as to what might help them keep the entry afloat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achilles11 (talk • contribs)

User's only contribs, again, are here, and at the article's talk --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 05:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• This page should be kept...who are we to deny anybody the right to a fair and impartial website- Ron Mexico...Atlanta, GA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.142.42 (talk • contribs)

'Nother case of User's only contribs are here... --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 05:42, 29 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.