Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totse 2


 * 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. &mdash;BorgHunter (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Totse
No notability established, seems to have constant bits of NN facts added by bored totse members. It does have a lot of google hits, but many of them are for the wikipedia article, and the number is inflated due to it being an internet website... -Greg Asche (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ''Previous AFD: Articles for deletion/Totse.


 * Keep. Major repository/archive of text files from the early Internet and BBSs. Just being vandalized should have no bearing on its deletion. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Not terribly notable and a vandal-magnet to boot. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Spammers The article should not be deleted, just cleaned up, people are spamming. 21 Dec
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.43.67 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete this nn silliness.--MONGO 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Care to explicate why it is non-notable and silly? --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, What is non-notable about the article or silly? - SS 21 December 2005
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.43.67 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. I'd err on the side of caution here. It gets a lot of hits and links, it's notable to those users even if it's not to me personally. --kingboyk 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments above. -- JJay 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is informative because it gives a broad description of the site, and therefore it belongs on the Wikipedia. -- Zachary Murray 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The question is, why does an article about this site belong in wikipedia? How do we know there are people who would try to look it up? E.g. can any third-party coverage be shown? Kappa 05:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Who are you and why are you using Kappa's account? Gazpacho 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am Kappa, this is my accout. If someone else hacks into it, I'll let you know. Unless they kidnap me or something... Kappa 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Please, it is NOT a waste.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.131.100 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep if they indeed have 32K forum members as they claim. Flyboy Will 08:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Maru. Alexa ranking 17460 is quite good. --Squiddy 10:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, an Alexa rank of 17,460 should be enough to keep this. Even if they don't have a large number of members, they clearly have a large number of people visiting. - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Totse is just as informative as Wikipedia or even Britannica. Check out Totse once it gets back online and you'll see. Plus anyone who says delete is an idiot.- Pingy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.149.27 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Though I have to agree that this article acts like a honeypot for vandals, I would also like to argue that we should never use that as an argument on AfD. Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Britney Spears, Jimmy Wales...all of these people are notable. And all of these articles should never be deleted from this encyclopedia. Just because Totse is not as notable as *THESE* people, doesn't mean that it still holds a considerable amount of notability. It's been on the web for almost a decade, it has a really large community and I believe that the site's subject is rather unique. I can see your guys' point in deleting it to prevent vandalism..but we can also protect pages..if it goes out of hand (I got this article protected once). So just to make sure, I'm not a big fan of the constant adding of non-notable descriptions (for example, thorough descriptions of its moderators), and I don't like the high rate of vandalism either..but for every vandal there's a vandalfighter. We can handle it. -- SoothingR(pour) 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Soon enough the Semi-protection policy will be able to take care of vandalism on pages like this. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Semi-protection is meant for seriously vandalized articles like GWB- not piddling persistent vandalism like Totse. --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup and watch. FCYTravis 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Maru, cleanup's good, deletion's unnecessary
 * Keep. This is actually one of the more notable Internet forums, and I had some experience with them over Holden Dapenor .  --King of All the Franks 06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Notable because of size and enormous collection of text files; irrelevantly, I was a member for a while but left because I got sick of it. YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The Blockbuster downtown is big and has an enormous collection of DVDs, but I don't think they're wiki-worthy either. Entry seems to serve primarily as a means to boost site's ratings in search engine. Any changes made to it draw highly-POV responses from users thereof, precluding rational commentary. Digital Avatar 05:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See the Alexa rating above. That seems to indicate they're not really in need to of search engine boosting. They already get visitors. - 82.172.14.108 11:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is not solely informational due to its large collection of textfiles. It is informational for being a popular website and forum that is (for all intensive purposes) unique; for example, an article on your downtown Blockbuster might be not notable, but an article on the company Blockbuster which rents DVDs is notable. Totse is notable due to its popularity, uniqueness, and community. Zachary Murray 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep The difference between the Blockbuster in question and this site is that the many things in this collection are people, which are also the primary viewers of Wikipedia. If there were to be a wiki for DVDs to look up information, then they would probably like to have your Blockbuster on their site.  That didn't make any sense, but that's beside the point.  In any case, being a magnet for vandalism is no reason to get rid of an article, right?  --ParkerHiggins  ( talk contribs ) 08:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If it was, we wouldn't have an entry on George W. Bush. :)  --King of All the Franks 20:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an interesting idea, for better or for worse, and it could count as having high relevance to a fledgeling subculture because its users seem to be united around a set of central ideas that could survive without the presence of the website but would be significantly weakened without it. Additionally, it's well-known enough to have connection and significance to the world at large, even if not a major one. It's a keeper. Anonymous 4.88.1.16 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No real reason to delete--67.49.157.152 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known website/former BBS. Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see why this article should be deleted, after all, it does supply the same quality of info as other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummondjacob (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Im a member of the board and this is the way i get news when the site is down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.211.54 (talk • contribs)
 * An encyclopedia entry is not the place for people to post news about the site being down. This kind of abuse is a major factor contributing to responsible editors' desires to see this article deleted. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 06:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And those who want to keep it are irresponsible? --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being unclear: Those who abuse the article are irresponsible. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If Something Awful has an article, I can't see why this shouldn't. Unfortuantely many members of the site like to vandalize the article so I personally think that it should be permanently locked to all anonymous users. - Drahcir 08:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is TOTSE as well known as Something Awful? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but they both appper to be quite popular and both sites are quite similar in some ways. - Drahcir 02:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Totse is a community. While the entry existing now is more about the website itself, information on the subculture would fall under the category of this page, and is definitely something that belongs on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChickenOfDoom (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep It belongs. Totse is well known among the online community, as the Alexa rankings will testify. But anti-vandal action does need to be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil0verl0rd (talk • contribs)
 * Keep No one questions having a page about YTMND, why is anyone questioning a page about TOTSE? Deletionists trying to pick off the weakling articles, eh?  Al-Kadafi 22:08, 28 December 2005 (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.