User:Silversmith/Test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pointless Waste of Time

  • Keep This site was linked to by the online version of the UK's Guardian Newspaper [1] check for "Dr Albert Oxford" Wickbam
  • Keep The site is heavily trafficked and is of original content with some notable contributors CatCrofts 16:57, 11 Apr 2005
  • Speedied twice, speedy it again--nixie 03:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone report this to admins as a zombie-deleted article? If it's come and gone a few times, I think they can block the title from being re-created again. Feco 03:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepHaven't found evidence of it being created or deleted previously. Also, I'd like to see the reasons for earlier speedy deletions. Besides, if it's described as a Something Awful clone it should be allowed to stay just as the other site.Mgm|(talk) 08:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery - but that doesn't mean the imitations are on par with the original, or, indeed, notable. SA -> 389k googles, PWOT -> 13k googles. Radiant_* 11:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • KeepAs said elsewhere, and indeed, in the article itself, pwot is not an imitation of sa. (Rather, they were started around the same time.) Also, "somethingawful" gives 113k googles, "pointlesswasteoftime" gives 15k.merv
  • Keep. This is a relatively popular website. The forum itself has over 4000 members, and the website has been referenced by Penny Arcade. Check this link and search for "wailing and lamentation." It links to a PWoT article. Sean Gray 11:56, Apr 11, 2005 (EST)
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of previously speedied material. Also suggest protection from re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if anything, being a "clone" of another site would make it less notable, not more, as it wouldn't even be innovative. Wikipedia is not a web guide. CDC (talk)
  • Keep. Be sure to read the article fully before commenting on deletion. The article clearly states the site was made before SomethingAwful, hence it is not a clone. Note also that Jay Pinkerton, one of the largest contributors as noted, is the editor for the National Lampoon. The article needs some brushing up in terms of vanity, but once done it seems acceptable as a keeper. --Atolmazel 5:45 PM, 11 Apr 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Same as Adamsan. Also, previously deleted incarnations of the article have been substubs.--Wasabe3543 18:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no valid reason for deletion. No harm will come to anyone in any possible way. The only consequences of having this article will be beneficial ones. YingPar
  • Keep.I haven't yet seen any convincing arguments for deletion. The previous incarnations of the article were apparently poorly-written advertisements; this page conforms to basic wiki standards, it could arguably do with some NPOVing but that is a process that necessarily takes time. The relevance of Alexa rankings and Google results has been argued a hundred times before and I do not propose to repeat them; I have however already demonstrated that these criteria have not been applied to other comedy site articles. Some fans of the site have listed a few links with the mainstream media which although not compelling on their own, do build a case for inclusion. The initial reasons for deletion given by InShaneee are therefore not to my mind valid. The contributors who recommend a speedy delete appear to be unfamiliar with wiki policies themselves (WP:CSD) and proposing to block the article from recreation seems rather drastic given that it is not in any way offensive. The page does not conform to the criteria for Wikipedia:Vanity_page and I have to sincerely ask whether some of you have read the article or this encyclopaedia's policies.adamsan 21:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a big submitter to Wikipedia, but frankly I see no reason to delete this. Epilpir
  • Keep. No reason to delete. --Kyknos 22:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sock puppet level has been broached. RickK 00:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a pointless waste of time.  :) — Helpful Dave 00:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a timeless point of waste. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - What kind of an encylopedia shuns knowlege? - Anonymous
  • Delete Too many sockpuppets, and we've already had this. Chris
  • Delete this sock-supported, already-deleted, no-need-to-waste-any-more-on-it pointless waste of time. Jonathunder 04:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Webcruft, WP is not a web guide, sockpuppet supported. jni 05:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ::- Neithan you didn't sign. Chammy Koala 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Do we really need to have this here? I am from the site's forums, and I think it is a stupid idea to have a Wikipedia entry about the site. if anyone is at all interested in Pointlesswasteoftime.com the best source is http://Pointlesswasteoftime.com (makes sense huh?). The humor isnt conveyed through the Wikipedia article, and I think the idea of explaining a humor website here is a little bit odd. The site is easy enough to navigate that anyone who ever IS interested in the site is better off simply checking the site out for themselves. All this is then is an article for a website that needs no explaination. Delete it. --Fermun 17:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm 1/2 of the PWoT writing team. I'd rather brush my teeth with a wood-file than have a PWoT entry on this site. "Deserve" to be on Wikipedia? Please, for the love of God, delete this retarded entry before I vomit blood. -John Cheese
  • Delete. While I voted for "Keep" above, one of the site's owners has come forward and requested a delete. Since he is, indeed, part-owner of the site, and does not wish for this article to be up, then delete it. There's no more reason for it to be up, period. Grinnell007
  • Keep. For wiki consistency -- plenty of other websites are on here. Sorry, John. Tlogmer
  • Keep. MicahMN | Talk 01:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We cannot allow John to kill himself over this. I think he makes a valid point in his "deserve" comment. We should wake up to ourselves.--Chammy Koala 09:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Cna't see an honest reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn timewastecruft. ComCat 06:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've made contributions to wikipedia months before this, as my contributions page shows (in fact I seem to remember making more, but I suppose I wasn't logged in for them, but the point remains that I've made contributions). If you can't determine when my first contributions were made, I would doubt the accuracy of your list; however, after seeing that the owner does not want the article, I change my vote to a Delete.CountMippipopolous
  • Delete as vanity, as shown by fans piling in. Also clue in the name. --Henrygb 10:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless this one article somehow fills up the rest of Wiki's storage space, I see no reason to delete it. I am Wesleywatson, and I approve this article. --Wesleywatson 19:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - actually I've changed my mind. The vandalism of my user page has resulted in this change of vote. If the page gets deleted make sure to protect it blank. Thryduulf 20:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or just speedy it. Xezbeth 20:49, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • keepGeni 20:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Only 557 references on google. Not enough for a website. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 21:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, I'm changing my vote. Keep. Borderline notable, and the vandals want it gone. --Carnildo 23:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote keep. Was borderline notability, so I'm now voting to keep out of spite. When it passes I'm making it a featured article, complete with screenshots. – ClockworkSoul 21:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Still, we shouldn't vote based on the vandals. The first few keep votes established enough notability. Keep. We shouldn't let vandals decide what's included. Mgm|(talk) 21:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE Seriously, delete it, and it will all be over. Try our board if you want, but seriously, we don't want to be here anymore. a few of us wanted it at first, now we don't. Bakudai
          • Alright, I'm changing my vote to Delete. John, half the PWOT writing team, has stated clearly several times that he doesn't want the article on here. The wiki doesn't have to obey his wishes, of course, but he's really fucking motivated and him and his followers will suck up a lot of your time and energy if you're determined to keep the article here. I'd say you're faced with a choice: - Tlogmer
  • Delete. Good luck to the poor admin who has to do the count when this VfD closes. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete John Cheese, half of the site's writing team, said he didn't want it on here. (My vote isn't going to be counted anyway) --HorustheElder 22:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article may need improvement but that is not grounds for deletion and I can find no other grounds (it is not vanity and it appears to be notable, albeit mildly, by association). I found the article quite (in the UK sense) interesting. Oh, and if John Cheese could refrain from suicide in the event of the article being kept, I would be grateful. --Theo (Talk) 23:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough. Also, this VfD is a pointless waste of time. --cesarb 01:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 119 01:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kuralyov 02:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Alright. I nominated this thing, I figure it's time I finally took a stance. Originally, I only listed this because I thought that was the proceedure for previously speedied articles. However, several point have been brought to my attention. Firstly, the speedied articles had 1-2 sentences, so these were definatly not the same article (my bad). Combined with the cited claims to notability provided above, I don't see a convincing enough case for deletion. --InShaneee 03:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Half the writing team wants it deleted, the other half knows of the situation and has put forth no objections to the deletion request. The point is, by deleting the entry you are hardly 'giving in', the votes were clearly heading in the delete direction. By then voting the opposite way once John Cheese says he wants it deleted is childish and asinine. Don't bother stating that I am a new user. I am a new user, I registered to submit my desire to have this article deleted. 5 Days is up. Do the tally and do what you have to do, but for heaven's sake, don't break your own policies over this --Ruteger
  • Delete. Seems like the logical decision when you have your arm stuck inside an angry hornet's nest is to take it out. -- Teh Bomb Sophist P.S., I have at least six Wiki edits by now. Sockpuppet status: revoked. I can make more speedy link additions if you want me to.

[edit] Vote Count

I've deleted all "comments". I've been very careful not to count anyone twice. I've deleted initial votes where the user has changed their mind, so only their new vote appears. I've not deleted everything as it's easy to miss stuff, but I've been very careful not to count anyone twice, and I've written it all down on paper to do this.

  • Not discounting any votes due to sockpuppets etc. the tally stands at:

23 Keep and 30 Delete.

  • I've done a count and I'm discounting all the votes made by uses with fewer than 50 edits as of today.

23 Delete and 13 Keep.

--Silversmith Hewwo 14:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)