Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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)[reply]

YTMND

edit

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Changed vote to speedy keep. Fyrestorm 22:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. YTMND, whether they enjoy vandalizing Safety or not, is a notable website.  RasputinAXP  c 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AFD is not for rewriting or cleaning up articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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))[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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/YTMND_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1071233711"