Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Something Awful

Add links
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. -- BD2412 talk 21:33, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Something Awful

[edit]
Note: This VfD overwrote a previous VfD on the same subject. --cesarb 2 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log. --cesarb 2 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
  • Keep. Something Awful is, whether the complainant likes it or not, a major player in the development of Internet culture and a major player in the development of multiple Internet phenomena. And there are a lot more Johnny-Come-Lately sites that aren't being targeted with VfDs. Certainly it deserves to be kept as much as any other site. All this VfD-ing sure seems like some personal beef to me. There oughta be a way to stop pages from being harassed like this. --69.209.225.187 22:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so you know, the VFD is closed. Keeps won, of course.--DooMDrat 22:59, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just got to the page because I wanted to see exactly what SA has contributed to Internet culture. It is a useful and interesting topic. frecklefaerie 8 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)
  • Keep. As one of the internet's most well-known humor pages, it's quite noteworthy. Always room for improvement, though. 65.0.28.200 8 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please, stop the trolling, this is a perfectly valid entry. Joel de Bunchastu 11:45, June 23, 2005
  • Delete Website vanity. Closed Community Advertisement Unsigned vote from 24.69.52.124 (talk · contribs)
    • User has three edits. Punkmorten 5 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)
  • Delete Website vanity. unsigned vote from 213.158.254.154 (talk · contribs)
    • User has two edits, and it seems like he was the one who inserted the VfD.
  • Keep -- a valid encyclopedic entry for a very unique online community. --Sonance 22:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's one of the biggest humor websites out there, it certainly deserves its own page. Stilgar135 01:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- a site rather significant in the history of the Internet, and unique enough in its content and scope to be a valid entry. This isn't some 14 year old kid on a Geocities page making fart jokes and looking for free traffic. docSachiel 01:04, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)
  • Keep Something Awful is a unique website , with thousands of members and many years on the internet. It is unique and popular enough to validate this entry.
  • Keep WP has numerous other articles on different websites (Slate.com, Fark.com, Slashdot.org, Plastic.com, even zombo.com). There's no reason not to. --Uhlek 14:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site is important enough that this article on it is linked to by our own article Web traffic, for good reason. Bill 17:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't see any reason not to. Wereon 18:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Something Awful is one of the biggest humor websites on the internet, with a unique community and it deserves its own Wikipedia entry.
  • Keep Culturally significant, in the same category as FARK for being a major force behind internet trends. Also - Wikipedia has no size limit. That's one of the points of the entire project, to make an encyclopedia that doesn't have to be condensed into a hardback with a deadline. Kade 21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - and I'm a deletionist. Pretty much defines the "notable Web forum" category. --FCYTravis 04:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Culturally significant, although the Terrible Secret of Space section looks much more encyclopedic than the rest. (Funny thing, I seem to remember it having much more content last time I looked?) MrVacBob 05:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable and significant. Linked to from several articles. Thatdog 19:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - One of the most important sites on the internet. Moreso than other sites like deviantART that have pages here. Dstopping 05:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article helped me. That's the point, right? ROYGBIV 04:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was glad to find this info tiggs000 00:26, Jun 28, 2005
  • Keep - The site is a significant part of Internet culture with its very busy forum, and is a regular generator of humourous content shown on its main page. Nicknicknickandnick 6 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
  • Keep SA is unique enough and is an important enough part of Internet culture to warrant inclusion. unsigned comment from 210.86.52.196 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep - Delete request from an unsigned otherwise non-contributor, this is a troll FiddyCent 28 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is well written and pertains to an important aspect of internet culture. There is bo valid reason why it should be deleted. unsigned comment from 209.195.100.104 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep Site has enough popularity to have an article. Bushytails 30 June 2005 05:49 (UTC)
  • Keep A website with a large audience and hits. If this is deleted, then Slashdot has to be deleted too. Peter McGinley 30 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the keep's have fairly outweighed the delete's now. How much of a margin is really necessary before these delete entries can get purged? unsigned vote from 4.246.212.139 (talk · contribs)

OK I tried to provide users for all the unsigned votes in this discussion but it proved rather a difficult task. Let's just say consensus is to keep, seeing as the only two delete votes were from users without accounts... -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

  • Keep - if we have a speedy delete, why can't we have a speedy keep? --Mothperson 2 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
    • We have. See the guide. --cesarb 2 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
  • Oh. Speedy keep, then -- --Mothperson 2 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
    • We actually don't. We have the vote, but not the mechanism (it was shot down several times because it's too easily abusable). Five days isn't that long really. Keep. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:47 (UTC)
      • Yes, but when all votes are speedy keeps and the nomination has obviously been made in bad faith, some administrators close the debate prematurely. It's rare, but happens. --cesarb 2 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)
        • Just plain Keep, then, and all my non-existent sock puppets say they vote the same way, too --Mothperson 2 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
  • Stong keep Dunc|☺ 2 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Notable website. Yeah, I know there's no mechanism for that, but I'm voting on principle here. This discussion ought to be closed early. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 00:28 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, notable website, suspect that it's a bogus listing. (I suggest withdrawing the listing too, given how many keep votes there are.) --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Can't we finish this up now? --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable website. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 4 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
  • Keep. Content-rich source of information on an influential website.--Vox 4 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)
  • Keep. Historically significant, in terms of shaping internet trends.--Jesse 4 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, this is notable. Punkmorten 5 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't know why it was put up for deletion in the first place. It belongs (and I think that as a TotalFarker *grin*) --GaidinBDJ July 5, 2005 18:46 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. --BradBeattie 5 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
  • Keedy Speep. --Ashibaka (tock) 6 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very significant. It's been nearly two weeks. I think the Keeps have it, somehow.--DooMDrat July 6, 2005 06:20 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable website. - Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)
  • Keep. In case anyone still cares about voting. Avertist July 6, 2005 21:07 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Cordell Walker 7 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Hell, I'm an SA Goon, but does this belong in an encyclopedia? — Dan Johnson TC July 7, 2005 23:14 (UTC)
  • Keep, revise. This is not very encyclopedic and perhaps should be edited to have better information. — BAILOPAN 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
  • Keep - In before it closes! Sorry. Amerika 8 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
  • Keep - Why would anyone nominate this for deletion?! Redwolf24 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)
  • Keep - Vanity Article? SA gets to many viewers for something like that! T ConX
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Something_Awful&oldid=1138778171"