Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pointless Waste of Time

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was article already deleted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Waste of Time

Speedied twice as vanity. Alexa rank of 44,254. --InShaneee 02:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • 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
  • Note that CatCrofts's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco
  • Note that I've actually contributed to 3 articles. Wickbam
  • 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)
    • Note that in Feco's previous 50 contributions, he has voted delete on 3 articles, proposed another article for deletion, and has not voted to keep any articles. CountMippipopolous
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Haven'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. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 08:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • 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. Delete. Radiant_* 11:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • As 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. Keep merv
  • Note that merv's contrib page [2] is blank... post-spoofing?
  • 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)
  • Note that Sean Gray's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco
  • I will openly admit a connection to the site. I don't see how that affects the validity of my argument, however. Sean Gray
Sean: It does not affect the validity of of your argument but it is policy that users who have only contributed to the article under discussion do not carry the full weight when forming a consensus about a proposal of deletion. --Theo (Talk) 01:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of previously speedied material. Also suggest protection from re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's been brought to my attention that one of the key reasons for this article's initial speedy was the fact it was at the time a poorly-written substub. No vote as of yet. --InShaneee 16:14, 11 Apr 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)
    • It's not a clone, it just deals in similarly text-based humor. That point is made quite clearly in the wiki. Pointless Waste of Time is innovative in the fact that many of its clearly humorous articles are taken seriously in forums and chat rooms all over the Internet. Do a google search for "Albert Oxford" and you'll find dozens of message boards full of people arguing why this clearly fictitious man is a moron because he claims that "the character of Elrond in Lord of the Rings is a rip-off of Agent Smith from the Matrix." Sean Gray
  • 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)
  • Note that Atolmazel's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco
  • Note that ad hominem does not affect my rationality or lack thereof. Atolmazel
  • But they do help decide whether or not you are a member of the Wikipedia community and are knowldgeable about Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that ad Hominem is never acceptable in a debate, and considering how easy it is to become familiar with the guidelines, whether or not you are a "member of the community" is not a factor of the argument.YingPar
  • As YingPar. If I have shown an ignorance of a particular policy, alert me to it. If any of the facts I have quoted are false, expose them. But to merely call me new, bias or ignorant without any explanation is a complete fallacy, and an unfair attempt to undercut my points without relevant confrontation.Atolmazel
  • Y'all are confusing ad hominem arguments with ad hominem fallacies: identifying the source --and probable unreliability thereof-- of an assertion or argument is perfectly reasonable rhetoriacl technique. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think Wikipedia should be a "web guide." If it is ok to have articles on websites, then what is the criteria for chosing them? I think this is a good article, and the site itself seems very interesting. Why should it be deleted and "the best page in the universe" [3] not be? What's the difference? No vote as of yet. --Chammy Koala 17:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The difference is that some websites (e.g. yahoo) are more notable than others (e.g. splornik #17). The google test, while not always a good criterium, would be a decent way of measuring a website's popularity and impact. Of course there are no strict bars for the numbers, hence this discussion. Radiant_* 18:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I must declare a connection with the site but would like to point out the Alexa rankings for some of the other Category:Comedy websites: KTAB News (Ranked 1,886,406, article here since Nov 04), Landover Baptist Church (Ranked 45,872, article here since Jan 04) and Zombo.com (Ranked 143,341, article here since Jan 05). adamsan 18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 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 This site has just as much a right to be here as Jibjab, Seanbaby, or any other self-proclaimed comedy site. Having it on here adds more knowledge to the subject of comedy websites, and does not deter anyone from learning. If this article is removed, it will be tried again in 6 months or so when someone else has the idea to try to put it up here. There must be a reason why this page keeps coming back. I may not have contributed much to Wiki, but I do read it quite often, and I know things like this help. I can not see how it can hurt. Bakudai
    • User's first edit was to the article, and has only been contributing under this name for two days.
  • 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
  • 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.Keep. adamsan 21:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to summarize, the reasons for deletion seem to be 1) Clone of SomethingAwful 2)Been deleted before 3)Not notable. All three have been thoroughly refuted. 1) It has been established PWOT is older than SA, and in any case the arbitrary comparison is hardly grounds for deletion. 2) It has also been established that the older incarnation was substubs, created by an entirely seperate entity from the current entry. 3) Of the two people who have claimed it is 'not notable', neither have exhibited any knowledge of the content of the site itself. PWOT has been mentioned by Penny Arcade, The Guardian UK and has strong ties with National Lampoon. The goal of Wikipedia is to create a compendium of knowledge, this wiki does not go against that goal, in fact actively supports it. At best it needs to be cleaned up a little, deletion is completely out of the question. Atolmazel
  • Keep. I'm not a big submitter to Wikipedia, but frankly I see no reason to delete this. Epilpir
    • User's only edit. RickK 00:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • This isn't an argument for removing the article, it's called ad Hominem and it's not cool. -YingPar
        • You do know the difference between ad hominem argument and ad hominem fallacy, don't you? --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. --Kyknos 22:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. I've been convinced.--Chammy Koala 23:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, sock puppet level has been broached. RickK 00:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • See above. You're not actually presenting an argument here. -YingPar
      • Neither are you presenting a counter-argument. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note RickK offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have to. Everyone can look at the edit histories of all of these newbie editors and can see that they were created solely for the purpose of editing and voting on this article. In the Wikipedia environment, the term "sock puppet" means a User which was created to edit or vote on a particular article. Your edit histories speak for themselves. We don't need to prove that it's one User with multiple accounts. RickK 20:09, 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)\
  • Let the cryptic slang non-arguments and predictable puns speak for themselves.
  • Keep - What kind of an encylopedia shuns knowlege? - Anonymous
Note (Insert obvious remark here) Chris talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the site isn't as famous as Something Awful, it is still relatively large (it surely isn't some random person's geocities page or something of that nature).CountMippipopolous
    Note User has 12 edits Chris talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Too many sockpuppets, and we've already had this. Chris
  • Note Chriscf offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

talk back 04:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • As mentioned above, the previous reasons for deletion don't seem to apply. Concerning the "sockpuppet" allegation, I'm pretty sure we don't fit in the usual definition of a sockpuppet (a single person posting under many names). I assume you can check the IPs to make sure. Merv 05:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Note Jonathunder offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • already voted above for a delete, but putting the note here.... page history shows more instances of one user editing/changing/removing another user's comments, but it's too complicated for me to try to revert back those inappropriate changes. Feco 04:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Webcruft, WP is not a web guide, sockpuppet supported. jni 05:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note Webcruft offers no proof of actual sock-puppetry. Sean Gray 07:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Somebody stop this guy from spamming please. Radiant_* 09:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would love to know how my pointing out several users' unfound arguments is spamming, while ad hominem attacks by the likes of Feco and Rickk made in exactly the same manner are considered acceptable. Sean Gray 15:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've yet to see a real reason for deletion rather than the cop out of "sock puppet" allegations. Wickbam

*Keep. Note — user changed vote to delete. This site has been online longer than most of those posting in here have. On a good day, there can upwards of approx. 30,000 hits on a popular article. An editor for a nationally recognized publication is a regular on the site. "John Dies at the End" will hopefully be released sometime in the future in a published form. The site itself has enough solid ground to support a wikipedia article (especially when something as inane as zombo.com is already a part of wikipedia). Have those that want the article deleted proved anything to the contrary? Have they even visited the site? Read the articles? If not, then how can they possibly make a claim to the validity? They cannot. Instead, they resort to childishly flinging notions of "sock puppeting" (unfounded) and the constant editing of the original article (Which was written by a "newbie" from the site, and was not approved by neither David Wong nor John Cheese, the site owners). As stated before, a quick check of each posters IP will show that we are not merely one poster trying to advertise his personal site. If any of the nay-sayers wish to continue to fling the sock puppet rant around, you can personally look me up at the Grinnell College website (http://www.grinnell.edu - email for name) to prove my existence. And yes, this is my only edit. I felt the need to sign up and protect Pointless Waste of Time from people who, without reason, wish to delete this thread. (EDIT: Forgot name. Grinnell007 1:26am, CST, 12 Apr 2005 AD)

    • User's second edit.

I'd just like to point something out here:

  • "Y'all are confusing ad hominem arguments with ad hominem fallacies: identifying the source --and probable unreliability thereof-- of an assertion or argument is perfectly reasonable rhetoriacl technique."

Incorrect; if someone has made an error, the only correct response is to point out the error so that those who haved erred have a chance to refute the argument. Calling their experience in to question does not allow for the opponent a rebuttal, therefore it is not an acceptable debate technique. In any case, the article in question has still not been proved to have violated any of Wikipedia's regulations, ergo there is no reason for it to be removed. As for WP not being a "web guide," the precedent has been set many times before, and this new addition does not violate it. See: Something Awful, Landover Baptist Church, Zombo.com, et cetera. Now, if anyone can respond to those points, I will be shocked. -- YingPar

      • The only correct response? I'm sorry, was this an Act of Congress that I missed? A UN Resolution?
See, that falls under a different rhetorical fallacy, namely "begging the question," whereby you assume the conclusion you're arguing for. The fact that you have to resort to these rhetorical games to "win" an argument pretty much tells me all I need to know about your sincerity and provides me enough information to comfortably dismiss what you have to say. --Calton | Talk 12:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly. Read WP:WIN. In particular, WP is not a general knowledge base. From that, it can be inferred that WP is not a webguide (indeed, that would be Google or Yahoo). Thus, not every webpage deserves a WP article, and the argument that some webpages have an article is no grounds for giving all of them an article.
    • Then, read WP:SOCK. Votes from new or anonymous users are generally discounted to prevent exactly what people have been doing here. A person creating a dozen accounts for voting is just as invalid as a person dragging dozens of friends into WP for voting. Both are called sockpuppetry, and this thread is obviously being socked.
    • It has not been established that PWOT is anything special amongst the thousands of other similar forum-and-text sites. Therefore, the deletion vote stands - and after deletion, it should apparently be protected against recreation to prevent vandalism. Radiant_* 09:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have certainly read WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_general_knowledge_base. Please explain which one of the consensus criteria you feel this article conforms to without adding your own inferences. You may like to know that arguing by citing precendent is currently being considered as WikiPolicy and you may find yourself using that argument later to no avail.
      • I have read WP:SOCK It states that new users are only treated as sockpuppets if the article being voted for can be established to be vanity or advertising. This has been discussed above and it cannot be classified as a vanity page. If you wish to imply that there are fewer users voting for inclusion than it seems, then I hope you have evidence to back this up.
EDIT: WP:SOCK is semi-policy and only provides guidelines, let's judge this article on its merits and not the background of the editors.
      • It has not been established that there is any reason to delete the page whilst maintaining other less well-written articles on less popular, less 'notable' sites. I say once again that this article is significantly different from its predecessors and should not be treated in the same way. Change vote to Strong Keep adamsan 11:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
- Neithan you didn't sign. Chammy Koala 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far we have 17 votes keep and 13 delete/speedy. Unless I misscounted. Please keep all new votes below this point.--Chammy Koala 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • From a quick survey, 3 of the votes to keep are from users who have only really contributed to this vote. 2 of the votes have been changed, mine and Grinnell007. So 12 keep + 3 debated keeps to 15 delete.--Chammy Koala 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, votes by anonymous accounts and accounts which did not exist prior to the creation of this VfD listing are not ocunted. You might want to re-count with those criteria in mind. RickK 20:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to add that PWOT was also mentioned on the front page of [Halo.Bungie.org] for an article. - Bakudai
  • 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)

It never ceases to amaze me when all of these new editors with axes to grind suddenly show up and try to explain our policies to us. As I've said in other places, which the new accounts would obviously have not read since they've never been to Wikipedia before the campaign to keep this article, if an article can't stand on its own merits, but must rely on the invalid votes of people who came here solely for the purpose of voting keep, then it does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Thus my vote above. RickK 20:05, Apr 12, 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
  • possible sock-puppet... or it might really be the owner/creator of www.PWoT.com. In either case, new wiki account. Brings up interesting point... copyright holders can demand their content be removed, but can subjects of articles ask wiki not to cover them? If Bill Gates emailed tomorrow w/ a req to delete his article would/should/could we listen? </navel gazing> Feco 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Email johncheese@pointlesswasteoftime.com, and I'll be happy to let you know in detail what I think. John Cheese
      • Note that John Cheese's only contribs are in relation to this article. He may be a robot; possibly even one from outer space.
  • (already voted above) A visit to WP:POINT might also be useful... it addresses the argument: "well, articles A, B and C are about less-notable subjects, therefore my article D has a right to belong in wiki if those articles are in." Feco 20:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right... it does. "If someone lists one of your favourite articles on VfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles... do argue vehemently on VfD in favour of your article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples." I don't get it, have you switched your opinion or something? Merv 20:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • like many things in wiki, WP:POINT tries to convey both sides of something without editorial bias, thus "consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem" on the same page as "do argue vehemently on VfD in favour of your article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples". I feel the information in WP:POINT is useful to both "sides" in this discussion, and was providing it for the benefit of all who cared to read. My vote, however, remains as above. I will change it in response to continued discussion here. Feco 20:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No body gives a crap whether your vote is changed or not. I'm personally begging you to LEAVE IT AS A VOTE FOR DELETE. The quicker we get this entry off of this site, the sooner I'll stop considering setting myself on fire. John Cheese
  • 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)

Vote Count

  • You're not counting any of the 'delete' votes as questionable? --InShaneee 19:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I suppose Fermun and John Cheese are "debatable" as well. I really would rather not count any of the "debated" votes, and I don't want to spend ages figuring out who is valid. If someone else wants to make a list of the invalid votes then they're free to.--Chammy Koala 21:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here's proof that it's actually me: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/johncheese/wiki.htm John Cheese
Holy shit! That sockpuppet just hacked PWOT! Atolmazel 21:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry John, I already believe that it's you, but the problem is on Wiki votes, it doesn't just matter if you are who you say you are, - and not a "sock puppet" - but we don't really count votes from people who have done nothing but vote on this one thing. I'm happy to count your vote, but it's not just up to me. I'm sure it will influence a lot of votes anyway, such as mine.

Would it help if I replaced all the text in that article with goatse? John Cheese
That would certainly get you permanently blocked from Wikipedia. RickK 04:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, we wouldn't want that. Because then, I wouldn't be able to get on here to remind myself why I hate humans. Plus, it would really suck to have to take that 10 seconds to spoof my IP address to get around the ban. The vote's gone on long enough... we have an overwhelming majority of people with no life asking for a delete, so let's do just it. John Cheese
    • So now we have 2 more delets and 3 more keeps. One of the deletes is from John Cheese, I believe it really is him. Total: 15 keep + 3 debated keeps to 15 delete + 2 debated deletes.--Chammy Koala 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Your count is highly flawed. How in the world did you come up with 15 keeps? As I indicated above, anonymous posters and the votes of people whose IDs did not exist prior to the VfD listing are not counted. I only count possibly three valid keep votes. RickK 23:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just counted the obvious ones that were red. If you count 3 keep, how many delete?--Chammy Koala 00:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Just doing a cursory scan, I got 12. RickK 00:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Verified Vote Count- below is a table showing every registered (non-anonymous) user and their votes. The letter code FC means the user's First Contribution to wiki was in relation to PWoT AND they have less than 50 total contributions. Note that this information is up-to-date as of the RickK post immediately before this one. Note also that the names listed are User's actual account names, which may vary from the signatures used above: Feco 02:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
x	Keep	Wickbam			FC
x	Keep	CatCrofts		FC
x	Keep	merv			FC
x	Keep	Sean Gray		FC
x	Keep	Atolmazel		FC
x	Keep	Bakudai			FC
x	Keep	YingPar			FC
x	Keep	Epilpir			FC
x	Keep	CountMippipopolous	FC
1	Keep	Tlogmer
2	Keep	Micahmn
3	Keep	Irishpunktom
4	Keep	MacGyverMagic
5	Keep	Kyknos
6	Keep	adamsan
7	Keep	Wasabe3543
x       Keep    Wesleywatson            FC

x	Delete  Fermun			FC
x	Delete	John Cheese		FC
1	Delete	Petaholmes
2	Delete	Feco
3	Delete	Megan1967
4	Delete	Radiant
5	Delete	Starblind
6	Delete	Cdc
7	Delete	Jayjg
8	Delete	RickK
9	Delete	Helpful Dave
10	Delete	Calton
11	Delete	Chris
12	Delete	Jonathunder
13	Delete	jni
14	Delete	Chammy Koala
  • 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


Not that I care that much anymore, but I had always thought people had needed a *reason* to delete an article. Just sayin'. Atolmazel 08:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Am I to understand that only my 51st vote and beyond will be counted?CatCrofts 09:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity, as shown by fans piling in. Also clue in the name. --Henrygb 10:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we've already established it isn't vanity. adamsan 10:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We've certainly established that it's a pointless waste of time. --Calton | Talk 11:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, nice wit penis breath.
I'm begining to undertand what Cheese is talking about. adamsan 11:11, 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)

How long did it take you spend making that table, Mr. Feco? That's quite an impressive effort for such a Pointless Waste of Time! Ha! Get it? But seriously, you'd make a great contribution to the fabulous world of American social politics. You're already an expert; just keep ignoring any actual relevent information and go straight at 'em! Opponent's plan ineffectual? More like opponent's plan innefagtual! Good times! I love Ad Hominium. Your bestest buddy, YingPar

  • I especially love how that table cuts out votes for people that wanted it kept. What are you, 12?
Eleven, actually, next summer. I expect you'll be there? Presents are uneccassary, of course; I'd rather hate to have myself indebted to all my friends, you know. Ha ha!
  • Keep Could do with some editing (ie; to remove vanity) but is otherwise a worthy contribution. The site is very popular and has been around for a considerable time. I can see reason to delete, it is very similar to the 'Fark' and 'Something Awful' articles, albeit, not as lengthy of deep.
  • Does the website owner's view count for more than another voter? And are the FC votes to be ignored for sure?
  • Actually, upon reflection, I see nothing wrong with the article. I would like to change my irrelevant vote to keep. John Cheese


  • keepdelete just about notable enough, but could do with some work to tidy it up once the vandals get bored. Thryduulf 20:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • Comment: Do we have an opinion of the site's owner? See also discussion on WP:AN/I about the calling to arms of the vandals. Mgm|(talk) 20:54, 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)
  • Delete. Not notable, and supported by a surplus of sockpuppets vandals. (Vote changed, see below.) --Carnildo 21:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Err they ain't supporting it they are trying to get rid of it (I admit it is normaly the other way around)
    • In that case, I'm changing my vote. Keep. Borderline notable, and the vandals want it gone. --Carnildo 23:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • which means, the easiest course of action is deleting it. Who wants to give free publicity to a bunch of assholes?

(Comment by 128.125.54.22)

  • Delete - Really not notable, especially for this kind of vandalcruft. – ClockworkSoul 21:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote. They want it gone, I don't feel that I should help them. You know, there's more of us than there is of them: we could swamp the hell out of their little board, if we had the inclination... – ClockworkSoul 21:40, 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)
  • So you mean a bunch of vandals only need to spam us to get something deleted? That would set a real bad precedent. Mgm|(talk) 21:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • You know what's also a bad precedent? Keeping an article that few people deemed worthy of inclusion until they decided they would vote "keep" just to spite vandals.
Oh I dunno we've got some pretty good artilces from following that logic in tha pastGeni 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)
  • You -are- voting based on vandals, just not -with- the vandals. It's like shunning pop music because it's popular; you're still basing a decision on someone else's decision.
  • 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
    • This user is a "mole troll". – ClockworkSoul 22:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I've been a wikipedia contributor for a pretty long time, and a PWOT regular. I don't know what a mole troll is, and it sounds unflattering, but Bakudai has been fairly non-insane regular over there; he's not just stirring up shit for the sake of it. And while of course I can't speak for anyone who's vandalized the site, I will add that most of us have no interesting in pissing on the wiki. The PWOT forums have a very large user base, but the (apparently substantial) number of vandals make up a small minority. Tlogmer (Talk) 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • When I posted a fairly nice note to Bakudai, he immediately reposted it onto the PWOT boards, with the suggestion the he was "gaining my trust". I would have ignored it, but the fact that he referred to me as "Cockwork" suggested that his intentions were not entirely honorable. Unlike most of those that vandalized here, his block is of finite duration. – ClockworkSoul 02:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't able to locate the post on the PWOT boards -- it may have since been deleted. Do you still have the text? If so, I could look at it to verify that he was indeed being an asshat and not making a circumspect joke not intended specifically to insult you (PWOT humor can be a bit impenetrable to outsiders.) Tlogmer (Talk) 02:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I don't :/ I didn't think to save it. If you feel that an unblock is warranted, however, I won't protest too strongly. – ClockworkSoul 02:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, I missed the main (newer) thread on this whole mess on PWOT -- I'd been reading the older thread -- so I didn't see all the stuff about directed vandalism. And while I have to admit that I find PWOTers vandalizing the PWOT wiki entry kind of funny, vandalizing other pages on the wiki isn't cool. Do what you have to do; I don't have the time or energy to follow this properly (especially since it's the weekend now). Tlogmer (Talk) 02:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • 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:
            • Delete it. Your troubles will end instantly. (Of course, you'll have appeased people you don't want to appease. They're people obsessed with this particular issue, though, not general-purpose vandals who'll give you trouble in the future.
            • If you're too worried about setting a bad precedent by caving in, you could go to war: contact John's ISP, etc. Obvisouly I don't want this to happen because I really like his writing and the more time he spends fighting silly legal battles the less writing he does. I don't think you'll get him to cave any other way, though. (Talk) 02:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
first edit to wikipediaGeni 22:32, 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)
  • After thinking about it for a while, it's pretty borderline (although the temptation to say "keep", to stick it to the twerps who hang out on that board, was one I had to work on to resist). It's just one more web-based electronic community, and on the edge as to whether it's notable enough for an article. (And it's basically irrelevant whether Cheese wants it gone or not - since when did we let the subjects of our articles tell us whether or not we could have articles on them? He gets one vote, same as everyone else.) Noel (talk) 02:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kuralyov 02:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This article needs to be deleted and protected from ever becoming an article again. It will be a waste of admin time dealing with the things John Cheese has planned if it isn't deleted. This whole thing is a joke. Let's focus our time on more important WP articles. --Chammy Koala 03:01, 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.
  • Comment What're the votes at? --Prophet
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pointless_Waste_of_Time&oldid=1138241429"