Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantown


 * 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mantown

 * Delete: No idea what this is supposed to be. WP:OR I guess.  Is currently sprotected due to ridiculous vandalism in the last 24-48 hours (which is what led me to it in the first place).  I've reverted to about a month ago when it was last stable. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)\
 * Comment: I mentioned this on the article's talk page, but the reason for the vandalism is because the hosts of The Toucher and Rich Show (a local afternoon radio show in Boston) were actively encouraging their users to vandalize it.--Caliga10 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, some combination of original research, crystal ballism, and nonnotability. NawlinWiki 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: I heard the show this afternoon as well. It all has to do with a rivalry between two local stations, WBCN and WAAF.  Each station has its own hardcore fanbase, and they go after each other online.  This article is just one result of that.  CardinalFangZERO 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bold textItalic textKeep it on in it's originallity, don't delete it because of the radio stations bout! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.47.76 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment: If meatpuppets want to vote here, go ahead and vote regularly (although you'll probably be ignored). If there is more vandalism, this page will be sprotected too.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hey its fun to lie, the host of Toucher and Rich never told users to edit the page. They did mention onair that users were doing it of their own free will.  Also, the original article mentioned it was for homosexual men; not heterosexual so why not just revert the page back to the Jan. 06 format?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.205.249 (talk • contribs)
 * The article cites no sources, and, searching, I can find no sources whatsoever. This is completely unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * del Mukadderat 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * lacking some sort of citation, the article should be deleted. To the unsigned individual claiming the original specified "homosexual", take another look. The article specified "heterosexual" until an October 19th revision. However, the point is moot without outside verification of the article. --63.88.58.254 09:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As the author of this entry I can assure you that it is real not a joke. I wrote it because I am friends with Jason Klare, the gentleman in the article who orginally came up with the idea.  He, nor I, am in no way affiaiated with any radio station in the Boston area, nor have we heard about their supposed proposed Mantown.  I am sure, however, that they found his idea on Wikipedia and have adopted it as their own.  There are no citations for the article simply because Mr. Klare is currently working out his vision for Mantown and the article makes no claims that have been published in a citable work.  Vote how you wish on the topic of deletion but it would be a very sad commentary on the subject if a few bad apples in morning radio ratings war caused the deletion of this article.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slemaster (talk • contribs).
 * I'll take that as a delete vote then? ;)  Actually, they didn't cause the deletion other than to bring it to our attention that this WP:NOR violation was in the system at all.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, then, based on Slemaster's clarification above.--Caliga10 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, original research, vanity, unverifiable, and/or spam. -- Anaraug 03:53, 7 November 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.