Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco the Wonder Dog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Taco the Wonder Dog
Nonnotable website. Now defunct, and still nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is (still) not a guide to Something Awful. —Korath (Talk) 01:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Google gives 305 hits for the term in quotes: appears to have had some notoriety as one of the "worst" (and, therefore, cool?) sites. Needs to be neutral and, if kept, has to discuss why it did have notoriety. Otherwise, I vote delete, especially in its present form. Stombs 01:22, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, borderline notability. If the website is defunct now I suspect there will be very few additional Google hits in the future. Megan1967 01:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'll side with Korath. Delete. --Idont Havaname 02:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Leave. Oh please. Taco's site has had nothing to do with SA for about 2-3 years before it went defunct. And besides, you don't see anyone VfD'ing JeffK. I've seen vastly more irrelevant things around here. DooMDrat 05:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Then nominate them for deletion, too. Uncle G 14:56, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, if you think there are irrelevant articles on WP then please do nominate them. The argument that because X nonsense exists therefore Y nonsense must also exist just doesnt make sense (unless of course there has been a previous VfD on X which approved it, and thats what VfD is for). Megan1967 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Then nominate them for deletion, too. Uncle G 14:56, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
- "Everybody knows" that it's actually Gaspode who is the Wonder Dog. (-: Uncle G 04:52, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Delete. But I have to sympathize with the argument that there is lots of irrelevant stuff on Wikipedia, so why pick on <fill in the blank>? And telling someone to nominate stuff they think is irrelevant or nonsense for deletion is a bit disingenuous when a lot of the irrelevant stuff has already survived VfD, sometimes three or four times. --BM 22:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't believe a "lot" of irrelevant stuff would have made it past four times. Wikipedian editors aren't that gullible and it's up to voters to ensure that the irrelevant articles dont hang around very long. Because only a small percentage of editors actually vote, it becomes problematic when an article has some emotional/political attachment and someone voting sees that it is up for VfD. Megan1967 00:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. 300 Google hits is practically nothing for something that is actually supposed to be notable on the internet. I have sites that are approaching that range. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
