Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where da moviez at

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 06:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where da moviez at

Should be reviewed for deletion, the previous deletion in 2005 was in my opinion uinfair. I, the author, am posting this page as AfD to avoid it being speedy deleted because it is a repost of an already deleted article. However i believe the original article was unfairly deleted and this should be given a second chance. It is valid information which is not false and should be given a second review perhaps.Crakorjack 03:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Even if the page wasn't drivel, it would be WP:NOR. Original deletion was justified. Coren 03:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This quote from the page itself says it all: Because of the nature of WDMA almost all of the soruces stating WDMA's existance cannot be verified. Okay then. Eron 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just because the sources cannot be verified does not mean that people should not be able to read the arguements on both sides. Just because some sources are not verified does not mean that the verified facts about the site should not be showcased in one place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crakorjack (talk • contribs) .
      • Delete. Yes it does. Actually, that's exactly what it means. Content must be verifiable. Keppa 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: The article references its own deletion on Wikipedia, it has been deleted before, and to quote the article, its "existance cannot be verified." Wikipedia is not the place for this. --Hetar 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per comments above, lack of verifiability. If it's so secret, then why is it being promoted here? --Valermos 08:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fairly clear from te article itself that there is no place for it here doktorb | words 09:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is rubbish. - Richardcavell 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote to delete if a mention of it is made in the "somethingawful" article or other relevant topics. This is a relevant article, but the whole point of the page, the whole reason this website is well known, is for its secrecy. Keep it as a rumor article, a joke article, a footnote in another article, a fragemnt, a stub, anything, but it needs to be mentioned somewhere, because it is notable and because it is unresolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.140.52 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 April 2006
  • Speedy delete as above. A section on its original deletion? The article claiming that this topic is unverifiable? And the fact that this should have {{db-repost}} on it (the nominator would likely remove it, unfortunately)? I understand the nominator wants a "fair vote" (in quotes because AfD is not a vote -- the term "clear consensus" fits better), but it's still a G4 speedy candidate. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and after taking a close read of the article, this may even be a hoax. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I have officially decided this is real, but my other reasons for deletion still apply. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:I agree this should in theory be speedy deleted for repost, but because of the conditions of the original deletion, i believe it could be much more beneficial to keep this article as a hoax and have a dispute about whether it is true, it would benefit the article to see what people can dig up on the truthfulness of the site, because that is the issue truely in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crakorjack (talk • contribs) .
    • This article has been deemed "not a hoax", but the verifiability is still in question. --Crakorjack 16:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is real. It was a spinoff of a Something Awful forum, although no illegal files were shared there. The admins deleted the forum for various reasons at the beginning of 2005, leading to the setup of this site. From what I can tell, passwords to it were given out to a select few SA members. However, this is not endorsed whatsoever by the site's admins - members that join the forums to ask for the password are banned. Of course, this is all completely unverifiable (there is a section on this in the SA forums "SAclopedia", but only registered users can view it) and so this article should be deleted. --Doug (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just realized something... if he wanted to review the deletion, why couldn't this had been on deletion review? WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I used to be an SA goon, so I know this isn't a hoax, but there's so much wrong here it's hard to pick where to start. I'll just mention that the article claims that the RIAA, a trade union, is a "government administration". Pugs Malone 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you know what's wrong with it why cant it just be edited? --69.105.140.52 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- article says it may be a rumor, or may be real, or something. Whatever it is, it fails WP:V. They also complain about the previous deletion a lot, but that isn't the reason to delete this page. --Elkman - (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - If the article were to be shortened to simply "the illegid name of the site the BTB forum on something awful was moved to." or something of that type could it be kept? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.140.52 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete -- Violation of WP:V --Llort 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article as it stands is not useful due to WP:V -- if the network really exitst at the scale claimed, it does deserve a mention but please someone, expose it first :) TH 22:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment sounds a bit like nonsense, and it's too hard to verify. It's like some joke about some invisible thing, but i can't remember what the joke was... M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wishful thinking. More people have seen "space aliens". Shenme 05:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too many doubts in regards to verifiability.--Cini 16:03, 23 April 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.