Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor Sucks (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Sucks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Hmm. At first glanc, this doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. In any case, it has no reliable sources, and reads a bit... Fan sitey. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I didn't go to the website, and instead relied on the citations provided. One was unrelated (amazon), one was an incidental mention from Time, one was mentioned just fine (next to a slew of google ads on a questionable cite), and the last cite pulled a 404 Not Found error.  Seems to be a bit weak to pass wp:web.  Pharmboy (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the most prominent discussion boards for reality TV. GreenGourd (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, none of the sources in the article show how the board is notable per WP:WEB. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * a half dozen references have been added ranging from websites devoted to TV to major daily newspapers. Owen93 (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — Owen93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - agree that the sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - More referencing is needed to establish notability. The only reputable source, from a Time magazine website, mentions the site in passing. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator and NeochaosX. — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, None of the sources cited in the article show how the board is notable. A substantial amount of the support seems to be coming from SPAs. JoelleJ (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP- It was number 14 on a list of websites you'll want to visit recently published by a very prestigious magazine. The site was often mentiond by Janelle on Big Brother. but i don't know where it went. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.3.13 (talk)
 * keep Considering it's the largest reality TV based message board on Yuku (or anywhere else on the internet), it's validity as an entry in Wikipedia speaks for itself. It was, and still is, the leading pioneer in spoiling reality shows, a prime source of info for many entertainment media outlets, and the primary communications hub for anything and everything related to Survivor. I should also remind you that it's been around longer than Wikipedia itself. - S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.76.140 (talk)
 * Note - this !vote was apparently added by user:Seraphaem who changed the "unsigned" template. I've reverted and added this note.  Also note that user:Seraphaem is an WP:SPA. - Whpq (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep SurvivorSucks and It's creator were credited in the Finale of the First Season of Survivor. SurvivorSucks began as the first resource to spoil the results of the Survivor Series before the broadcast of events and has spawned the entire hobby of Reality Show Spoiling. - Owen93 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC) — Owen93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The website has some validity to it, after all it has been frequently mentioned in television shows and magazines as one of the premier Reality TV message boards. It seems strange to me that someone wants to delete this article when there are far shittier ones. Maybe they have an ulterior motive.  Maybe they are just a bitch, I don't know.  But this article should stay. - AE — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtfulEgotist (talk • contribs)  — ArtfulEgotist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The site has cultural sginifigance and has been regularly referred to by many major entertainment programs, and is one of the top sites for television discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimGrinningGuest (talk • contribs)
 * Keep The article might need to be cleaned up a bit, but Survivor Sucks is a legitimate website and part of pop culture. Just recently in the past few weeks it was listed in Entertainment Weekly. That being said anybody who hasn't gone to the website itself should not be allowed to decide if anything is valid. Yes sources are needed but then it should be nominated for clean up, not for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by andytw710 (talk • contribs)
 * KEEP you might as well delete wikipedia or Fox news while youre at it.Super Machine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.142.136 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If for nothing else, This article should stay because it is the parent website of the Vote for the Worst website -- which has a legitimate entry. This entry just needs some serious cleaning up and proper references added. There are plenty of media references to VFTW and Sucks. It may be a "fan" site of sorts, but it has actually become a major reference and source of spoilers in the reality TV community. --208.57.154.196 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)crabbypatty
 * Regarding the argument to keep because its parent website is seemingly notable, notability does not inherit. This article must establish the notability of its subject on its own. I encourage everyone who wants to keep, find reputable third party sources and add them to the article. I myself looked on Google, and could not find any. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Use Google News Archives and it brings up 183 articles for survivorsucks, some just about the site itself, some prominantly talking about survivor sucks while talking about the show and how the internet affects it and others. There is even one in National Geographic that, though it is about website naming and how it is evolving, they used survivorsucks.com as [i]the[/i] example for the whole anti sites evolution. The only problem is that many links are now broken or the sites charge money to access non-recent articlesLittleMatchGirl (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Couldn't find anything in the news for the past month . Perhaps you could find reputable sources and use them in the article to demonstrate the subject's notability? -FrankTobia (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So by your logic, if something wasn't mentioned in the news within the last month, it isn't relevant and should be deleted from Wiki? Oh.. and you should check your links again. There are two aricles listed from Jan 2008LittleMatchGirl (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - If this site gets deleted, then so should the 172 other Internet Forum articles listed here on Wikipedia. Also, how many of those 172 boards can claim to be significant enough in today's culture to be a Question on a Trivia Pursuit card?. If this board is relevant enough to be an answer of a trivia board game, surely it is worthy enough of having an article on Wikipedia. One more thing... one of the people above who said to delete this board stated as one of his/her reasonings was because they felt that the link to amazon was unrelated. CLEARLY this person did not even bother to read this article and determine what this citation was in reference to before damning it for deletion. That amazon link links to a book written by a spoiler from survivorsucks who spent a significant time spoiling the show on this board and wrote this book about it.. which is part of the history of this board.LittleMatchGirl (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ETA: WP:WEB asks for sources where the site is mentioned.. here's one from a recent edition of Entertainment Weekly, where the site is listed as #14 on their list of the Best of the Web. This site is talked about it on Big Brother too... clips can be found on YouTube (search "survivor sucks"). Also if there are issues with reliable sources or if this article is too "fan sitey" wouldn't a better resolution to deletion be one of the "Alternatives to Deletion" listed in the WP:DP? (verify option? poor writing option?)  Isn't "deletion" pretty harsh when there are other reasonable steps that can be taken first to resolve the issues at hand? You don't throw out the baby with the bathwaterLittleMatchGirl (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - The problem with trying to support a site like this with external references is that it's going to be difficult to find one. I read the Entertainment Weekly article which did in fact list Sucks as #14 out of its top 25 or something.  Google reveals no mention of that article, written by a Dalton Ross, I think, so I bet copyrighted and UTR of the search engines.  Besides, that author gave a compliment to the site, but for all the wrong reasons, so even there a reference would be pointless.  Besides, as noted in the main body of the article, when these people think "reference" they think "anal sex reference."  This place is not a website that can be quantified.  IvyGold (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hurrah for the single-purpose accounts. Delete per nom.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.126.39 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Above user is a known vandal. And he denies the overwhelming proof of manmade global warming to boot.--WaltCip (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Alexa numbers show that no one is using this site anymore,, but that said, it was notable at one point... Hobit (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obvious cultural significance. SS is the largest reality TV internet chat board.  Has multiple references in reality TV culture.  Starkrm (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And still is. Majority of people who visit there access it via yuku.com or ezboard.com (survivorsucks.com wasn't connected to the board for many years, only recently being redirected to it.. as noted in the article)LittleMatchGirl (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Site logs show an average of 26000 visits and 3500 posts per day. User:Owen93 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC) — Owen93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Here are the relevant Alexa numbers for the Survivor Sucks Yuku board Starkrm (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Are you kidding me? I (Snarky) would never want to delete the Sucks article. UncleCamerman (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2008 (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.