Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTMND (3rd nomination)

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 Keep listing appears to be a violation of WP:POINT by a troll, as such with strong consensus to keep, closed keep.  ALKIVAR™ 09:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YTMND

The main reasons for deleting this article are outlined on the talk page; basically a particular section was called into question and upon further inspection with the Mediation Cabal the entire article was found to be in violation. The opposing users have said they support a deletion in a private chat. I am also nominating the following related page because it is essentially an extension of the above page:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ke (talk • contribs)

  • KEEP YTMND is cool! What's so bad about it? We just need to remove some of the bad things on the article, that's all! --Galathos aka Flashn00b
  • Keep YTMND is a large community just like Something Awful or B3ta, both of which have Wikipedia entries. In fact, back when I had no idea what people meant by YTMND, Wikipedia's entry explained itto me. The entry just needs some editing - there's no reason to delete the topic.
  • Keep Um...honestly, is this a joke? The nomination sure sounds like it. YTMND is a huge phenom and how you could think to delete it...--mboverload 06:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Max himself has said he doesn't care and would actually prefer the site to be deleted. An article for YTMND could be argued as being necessary, but the article in its current form is an absolute mess. Dr. Ke 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Arguments must be weighed on the merits of the argument itself, not on who makes the argument. The fact that Max takes a particular side on this issue carries no more weight than anyone else's opinion, regardless of what side he takes. Wikipedia debates are probably not the place for appeal to authority arguments.DavidGC 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And no, Max did not say he didn't care. Plus, he used it instead of an official About for the site. -Mysekurity [m!] 13:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I support this action Vexidus 06:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep From a glance the question brought up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-10 YTMND was one of notability, which has already been discussed at AfD- even if the entire article needs reworking as suggested there, that wouldn't require deletion first. It could take a revert to an earlier version. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I agree that the YTMND article (as well as the "List of YTMND Fads" article) may have grown a little too large, I do not agree with deleting the article entirely. Apparently the root of the current problem can be traced to one or two trolls/vandals. Some concerned YTMND users are currently going through the proper channels to get the issue resolved. InfinityDUCK 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been resolved, and the parties involved agreed that an AFD submission for the article was acceptable. Max himself personally does not care if the article is deleted. This is personally the best conclusion we could come to considering the quality of the article. Base your votes on the merit of the article in its current form. Dr. Ke 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is completely unsourced for facts. I suggest that the article be re-done more than deleted, but if the article can't be backed up with sources for facts then under Wikipedia criteria the article is not valid. -Refault 07:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know where else one would go for facts about a site like YTMND other than the site itself. Unlike corporate sites like Google or AOL, there is very little "legitimate" news and research on private yet popular sites like YTMND. I believe most would agree that YTMND is popular and significant enough to merit its own article, but I think many are not sure what would have to be done to make it compliant with Wiki rules. My knowledge of Wiki guidelines is admittedly not great, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can. InfinityDUCK 07:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The current article, in all its glory, is tragic. It is akin to a disaster zone, like MySpace. To sum up all the inane fads that have come and gone through the history of YTMND is monumental. Would anyone really take the time to groom this mess; to properly categorize, be it alphabetically or chronologically, or even link to specific YTMNDs that adhere to the alleged fad at hand? Does anyone really care for esoteric fads that have fallen into deeper obscurity? The list is as asinine as a good majority of the fads themselves. LaLutteAvecCecil 07:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree... sort of. What I would like to see is a YTMND article that covers what the site is, the site's history, etc. and completely avoids going into detail about fads or particular sites. This would require cutting the "List of YTMND Fads" article entirely, then making major cuts to the main article. From there it would simply require rigorous moderating to prevent further "contamination." InfinityDUCK 07:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Max, the owner of YTMND himself, researched the troll by IP search, confirmed that the Stukas of YTMND.com and YTMND.com/wiki were the same, and removed him from the ytmnd.com user list, deleting his YTMND sites. An email was sent to Max from Stukas, saying he was unjustly banned. Soon after, Refault posted a new section called "Admin Abuse" in response to the actions taken by Max (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YTMND&diff=52207419&oldid=52205860), further adding false information to the article. In an attempt to revert this vandalism, Dr. Ke continously restored me deletion, proclaiming that it was a valid section of the article, when it fact, it has been completely orchestrated by both Dr. Ke (Stukas) and Refault, in an attempt to delete this article. I hope an administrator sees that I have researched this thoroughly, and I believe that the owner of YTMND, Max, would be happy to assist any Wikipedia administrator in order to revert this act of trolling. Fyrestorm 08:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Changed vote to speedy keep. Fyrestorm 22:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with that + I am done discussing that because we got nowhere. I have nominated the AFD because I feel there are large problems with the article. If the AFD fails the article will likely have to undergo massive changes. The nomination for deletion has nothing to do with that section submission. Dr. Ke 16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per mboverload. Kimchi.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kimchi.sg&action=edit&section=new sg 08:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep YTMND. I personally don't see any point in YTMND fads, but the site is very famous, and that counts as notability. Delete list of YTMND fads. Although the concept is notable, no individual fads are. JIP | Talk 11:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. YTMND, whether they enjoy vandalizing Safety or not, is a notable website.  RasputinAXP  c 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - AFD is not for rewriting or cleaning up articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if we must, but I support removal of list of YTMND Fads, siunce we can safely leave it up to YTMND to maintain thier own list. Since by definition a fad is a thing of no lasting significance, and these fads are only of any significance to YTMNDers in the first place, it seems to be cruft. Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. The first portion of the article is clearly encyclopedic. If problems exist with the rest of the article, they can be resolved within the article, not here in AfD. Third time's the charm... if this attempt at deletion fails, let's not rehash this debate a 4th time, folks. Wholescale deletion of an entire atricle is not the way to handle an item that has grown too large or contains too much minutia. That's what editors are for. I'm not sure that the YTMND Fads page is Wikipedia-worthy as a topic, but that article is separate and should have a separate AfD discussion if the result of this debate is "Keep". DavidGC 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's alexa rating is high enough to be on Wikipedia.
  • Delete for "list of YTMND fads". Weak Delete for YTMND. The website itself appears to fail WP:WEB, however, larger fad might warrant the article after some heavy re-tooling. I remain unconvinced that ytmnd.com is stunningly notable for having given a name to the practice of making short, funny videos out of movie clips. --Lee Bailey 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This website is actually used when the info section is down on ytmnd.Also, it can be useful for a complete list of websites.(Vance Clarend 20:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC))
  • Rewrite main article, and delete list of fads. The site is way too known to not have an article. It's always going to have vandalism problems because of the nature of this site and the nature of YTMND users. Danny Lilithborne 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both articles, this nomination borders on inappropriate. Silensor 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed why was this considered for deletion anyways?
  • It looks to me like lots of editors (and others) are becoming intellectually lazy and would rather delete an article wholescale than hash out issues on the article's talk pages and make the appropriate editing changes needed to repair it -- which naturally requires a lot more work. This is becoming a tiresome trend.DavidGC 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the page, I don't think this warrants a deletion unless it somehow becomes a problem to maintain, and the deletion was probably because of the big/huge fad list.
  • Keep. Any existing problems can just be rewritten. Efitu (Tlk Unc) 01:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite any problem sections. --Myles Long 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep YTMND, it's notable enough for several reasons that others have already touched on. Delete the List of YTMND Fads, as narcissistic garbage. The YTMNDers, or whatever they opt to call themselves, can make their own wiki for their fads or whatever. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Although I'm biased, I'd like the page to stick around and hopefully become a little more organized and a little less controversial. 69.86.240.141 05:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the main article, with a rewrite, of course. Delete List of YTMND Fads. As much as I personally hate this website, it's definitely notable enough to have an article. -MysticEsper 06:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it would be totally stupid to delete this article. bbx 07:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep nominated by a troll, and we've alredy gone through this—two times. Mysekurity [m!] 13:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rewrite, YTMND is quite a significant and popular internet meme, as such, it is worthy to remain on Wikipedia. However, a rewrite of the article so that it would adhere to NPOV and Wikipedia guidelines would probably be beneficial. yueni 17:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is a good resource for people to put YTMNDs into context. --87.127.18.122 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep YTMND (AfD is not the place for content disputes), delete List of YTMND Fads as unverifiable and non-notable (unless any can be found referenced in reliable sources). Fagstein 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep' this please we have ways to fix articles and erasing everything is not one of them Yuckfoo 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is abuse of the deletion system by like two users. 24.185.27.112 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It's YTMND.com. The site is one of the most famous on the internet for finding really funny stuff. Stormscape 00:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. This page, and List of YTMND fads should be merged and cleaned up, and these versions should be Transwiki'd. While the page about YTMND fads can go, this should stay. It is a highly notable site. Crazyswordsman 01:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As for the other article, I'd say either Edit down and merge here or Transwiki and delete. While an excellent resource, it is highly unencyclopedic. I'll help find a new home for it if need be. I'm saying this as a YTMND user, and I love YTMND. Crazyswordsman 01:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This website is probably world-famous. Ashibaka tock 01:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep nomination is poorly explained and the website has had a notable impact on the web *cough*Brian Peppers*cough*. Cedars 01:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Alot of people have worked hard on this, and I'm especially talking about the fad list. If nothing else, keep that up. Or just fix the main Ytmnd article, but for god sakes don't delete the thing. Kenshin1591 04:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The amount of effort put into an article is not really a good indicator of whether or not the article should remain on Wikipedia. If 5 friends spend 80 hours writing a Wikipedia article about what they did last weekend, it would be speedily deleted. I like the idea of moving the Fad page elsewhere and linking to the new location from the original article.DavidGC 05:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - highly notable internet phenomenom, the article is cited by the media, the website was mentioned by the media, the site has been featured on Attack of the Show on G4... the list goes on... —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 04:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As for the fad list page, weak delete - any fad that's notable enough to be mentioned should be mentioned on the main article. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 04:51, 13 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.