Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totse

Totse

• Yet another little-known Internet forum. Ashibaka (tock) 16:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A minor Internet forum is not of any relevance to an Encyclopedia RussellG 03:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and watch out because Totse users will probably be driven to vandalism by this. Eliot 16:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 134,000 google hits. Long article, so no point merging. Kappa 16:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. To avoid provoking vandalism, you could try explaining why you think it needs to be deleted. Kappa 16:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • P.P.S. alexa rank 15,270 [1] Kappa 17:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Totse pwnsWikipedia - 0nslaught-teh-l33t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hank Rearden (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edits were on this page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This comment was later modified by user:Toolow. That edit was reverted by user:Hank Rearden
• Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was vandalized by anon user:67.70.155.149
• Keep, or they will most likely vandalise the whole of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.128.12 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't their mere presence on VfD promote vandalism? We should judge entirely on whether they are encyclopedic or not, not whether we're scared of them. Average Earthman 17:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It explains what TOTSE is to those who don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.61.228 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first and only edit is this vote. - Taxman ^Talk 12:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: At this point in the discussion, user:Guettarda reverted the page-blanking, unfortunately also erasing some comments.
• Tards inbound from [2]. silsor 17:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Uh-oh.... Here comes the shitstorm. jglc | t | c 17:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: At this point, the discussion was again blanked by anon user:67.70.155.149 and immediately reverted by user:Guettarda
• Strong Keep. Popular website, many text files & a lot of members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hank Rearden (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote deleted, as he's already voted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: In fairness, the user's previous vote was still lost when he added this comment.
• Keep Never heard of it, but it looks like a large community compared to others which have large articles. ral315 17:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ral315 17:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: At this point, user:Mel Etitis restored the lost votes.
• keep please it is well known and npov too Yuckfoo 18:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Looks big, but the entire support base seems to be from Inclusionists (with a capital I) and vandals . . . -- Scimitar 18:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind. I read the page on TOTSE about Wikipedia. They are more than capable of spreading word of themselves without our help. delete. --Scimitar 19:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The more senseless comments (see "0nslaught-teh-l33t" above) that their dogs of war leave, the less and less this article seems to merit inclusion. jglc | t | c 18:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep Word out to the Temple of the Screaming Electron! Wooooooo! --Jscott 19:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable Web forum. Out of the jillions of forums on t3h intarweb, this is one of the *very* few that merits inclusion. However, I shall note that if the vandalism threats from supporters are carried out, I will change my vote. --FCYTravis 19:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Vandalism of the article has been constant. It seems that TOTSE members see it as a good place to make their mark, however temporary. The only reason I started maintaining the article was to keep the vandals in check.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe it should be protected. Kappa 20:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I would agree. It's on VFD anyway, it's not like it would be a tragedy to have it protected, especially with it's near constant history of vandalism. - Taxman ^Talk 12:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it would appear to pass the Pokemon test of notability. Guettarda 20:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You'd be surprised just how many people in how many countries in the world have heard of Pokémon. Uncle G 21:00, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
    • The test is something along the lines of whether the subject is more notable than the average Pokemon character (since they all have Wikipedia articles about them) Guettarda 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You'd be surprised just how many people in how many countries in the world have heard of individual Pokémon characters, too. People apply the "Pokémon test" but don't really comprehend how widely known Pokémon actually is. The Pokémon test actually sets quite a high bar, not the low one that people make it out to set. And many things that people claim "pass the Pokémon test" actually don't. Uncle G 22:03, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 328 inbound links according to Google, and there seems to be a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 20:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What's a good number of inbound links? Kappa 20:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, my benchmark for forum notability, www.ocforums.com, gets 18,000+ inbound links. --Carnildo 22:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sockpuppet limit reached. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Chronological order of several comments restored. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article failes to establish notability. Martg76 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Of the 534 edits to the article since it was created on 17 July 2004, almost all of them have been reverted as "vandalism" or as the addition of inappropriate content (all the "Totse-isms"). The vandalism and reversions has been fairly constant throughout the life of the article. The alexa ranking is currently at about 15,000 but has been highly variable over time and appears to have centered around 25,000 or so. If the claims of the current article are to be believed, there are only 30k users - not all that many for an internet forum. I would normally give some deferrence to an article that has been around for a year but the vandalism history concerns me deeply. Undecided for now but leaning toward delete. More verifiable evidence would be helpful. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No verifiable evidence added to the discussion. Vandalism and reverts to the article have continued at a steady pace. Delete. (Protect only if necessary.) Rossami (talk) 21:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable forum. JamesBurns 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 01:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article doesn't establish notability except the almost certainly false claim of "is reputed to host the world's largest collection of text files". (Or rather, the reputation exists but is inaccurate.) So few inbound links for a Web forum suggests lack of widespread significance: valuable only to its participants, and apparently not for any good reason. Only topical theme mentioned is a part-time inconsistent commitment to "free speech". Continued vandalism target, sockpuppet limit exceeded. Barno 03:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete any article which can't stand on its own merits but needs offensive sock puppets to keep it in the encyclopedia. RickK 05:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and then protect the name. While I have heard of the site and would like to see it around expanding on what it is besides being a forum, the revert wars argue for some stronger action. Vegaswikian 06:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then protect the article against re-creation. Just a little-known Internet forum supported by sockpuppets. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Radiant_>|< 09:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and prevent recreation - vanity, self-glorification, threats and practice of vandalism, pressure to maintain (definitely POV), sockpuppetry - Skysmith 10:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, check all the votes here for sockpuppets. I don't see anything about the article or forum that warrants an article. - Taxman ^Talk 15:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep its a very well known board, this isnt self-promotion... I dont see why it cant stay on here. Alkivar (who was too lazy to actually log in) 19:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) --71.241.192.241 (talk · contribs)
  • I don't see any evidence this is really Alkivar. Alkivar has never edited this page. - Taxman ^Talk 12:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • You know what bite me... I never edit a lot of pages... doesnt mean I cant vote on their VfD.  ALKIVAR™ 04:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's reputed to have the world's largest online text archive and one of the ancients among the migrated bbs's. It's been mentioned on CNN, Global Security Report, and even the Osbornes. It's honestly popular and quite controversial. Matisyahu ben Avraham 07:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: User's third edit. --Carnildo 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Totse has been around for a very long time, and is apart of internet history. The "offending" forum is just one part of totse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.161.169 (talk • contribs) 04:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only two edits to this page. - Taxman ^Talk 12:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is a well known site which has a lot of interesting information. The information is perhaps shown in a way unlike Wikipedia (would like), but it has lots of rare information and is a useful resource. The article should remain or all articles for online communities should be removed. Stop being petty, just because you don't like the sites users or content has nothing to do with whether it warrants an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.83.62 (talk • contribs) 05:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • User's second edit to this page. - Taxman ^Talk 12:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A forum that has been around for longer than many of the users that post on it should have an article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.80.138 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a Member. Also, it's an interesting and historic site.. It truly is. My exgirlfriend visited it.. I didn't even know she was interested in that kind of web content.. a lot of people go there..--Cyberman 08:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It has almost no useful information but it has its routes in BBS culture of long ago and therefor deserves an artical of its own perhaps with a link to the Wikipedia page about BBS culture in general. ~ Quantum from Totse— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.237.144 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Totse stores one of the nets largest collection of text files and has one of the most highly populated communities online. Keep this article ~ Valmont from Totse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.93.139 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Check it out. Very wide range of useful articles and infomation on lots of topics. It gonna be your loss if its deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.115 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --ShaunMacPherson 18:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Any reason? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 20:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Mackensen (talk) 18:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 17:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Though short (and one hopes it will grow) it is interesting and informative and tells me about something and some people I do not know about, what more could I want in an article? Francis Davey 21:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete My reasoning is that people are always so quick to vote articles for deletion (most delete votes are over point of view issues) and deleting this one appears to anger everyone at Totse. So, if this article gets deleted, the backlash may cause wikipedia to change its policies on deletions. DyslexicEditor 05:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:POINT --Carnildo 05:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I never knew what totse stood for and totse forms the backbone of internet free speech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.171.194.12 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) — second vote from this IP