Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Losers of America

Phone Losers of America

Unverified, non-notable. Delete Ardenn 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep If the GNAA has a page, the PLA should have a page, since nearly everything the GNAA has done the PLA did (although the PLA did it about a decade ago, was much funnier, and was far more original). If you think there's unverifiable information on the page, delete it, because everything I added was cited. It's true that there are vandals adding random garbage to the page, but that doesn't mean it's a candidate for deletion. If that were true, the Mohammed Cartoons article would've been deleted weeks ago. --Tokachu 22:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote for keeping the page. The PLA has a highly visited sight on the web and is one of the funniest groups out there.
Strong keep. PLA are notable, though the article might need some work. And as for the notice to anonymous editors, well, I thought this was an open community. --Myles Long 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't forum space. Yes it is a community of editors. Ardenn 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is a community of editors, provided they edit in good faith. Unregistered editors are capable of good faith edits. As for the AfD at hand, can you shed some more insight into your nomination, please? --Myles Long 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all small phreaking groups. Get a myspace page, Wikipedia is not a free hosting provider Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to my "GNAA vs. PLA" argument, as stated above. --Tokachu 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. PLA is not a "small phreaking group," nor is the article being used for free hosting. They have a site. --Myles Long 00:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the article describe them as a "small phreaking group"? And if you want to nominate GNAA for deletion as equally non-notable, you are free to do so. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Ikkyu2 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending some verification of the claims of media attention. Which articles? When? This sorely needs specifics. Additionally, is there a wikipedia policy against linking to pages describing howtos of illegal actions (i.e. credit card fraud)? Ziggurat 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Pending verification of the media attention claims? There is a whole page on the site that contains newspaper clippings, magazine clippings, video and links to articles about the PLA. The CNBC thing just happened 2 months ago. You don't think that clip of CNBC will eventually be up there? PLA has consistently been featured on TV, newspaper and radio for more than 10 years now. PLA is more than just a website. --RBCP 12:02, 14 February 2006
  - Then they should be added and referenced in the article, not alluded to vaguely. And the information in the article should be verified through such sources - just because it is "mentioned" isn't enough for Wikipedia verifiability requirements. We can't guarantee that this external page will be online forever, and we can't guarantee that someone reading this article will be online to check it either. Ziggurat 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When the Digital DawgPound, Stankdawg and Strom Carlson get their own articles, why can't we have our own? Sure there was tons of unverifiable information, but most of it has been weeded out. --Murd0c516 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the "some cruft exists, therefore no cruft may be deleted" argument, and is not persuasive. If you think they are less notable than this group, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. And there's no need for snarkiness. --Myles Long 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing the point? I thought I had grasped it rather well: the existence of other similar articles does not mean anything other than that they, too, may be candidates for removal or merging - depending of course on whether the judgment of theiur relative worth is objective. And I was being entirely serious: if you think they are less notable than this, please do go ahead an nominate them. Alternatively, if this group are notable, feel free to include citations to back it up. Right now the article describes them as a small phreaking group, and makes it clear that they were never widely known. Some of the hard data is uncertain (e.g. founding date), calling into question the verifiability of other parts, and much of the article is given to spamming the e-zine. In fact, pretty much the whole article is actually about an e-zine of which few people have heard. Seriously. If the subjects want it kept, fixing the article would be a much better way than recruiting meatpuppets (and I'm not saying you are, only that they are clearly in evidence here). Perhaps they could start by removing 95% of the links. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are missing the point. Also, I didn't say that they are more or less notable than the other articles mentioned. Those articles are actually irrelevant to this discussion, as I'm sure you know. My point is that this article clearly needs work, but the PLA are sufficiently notable to not delete the article altogether. Of course, that's just my opinion. I agree that removing the majority of the links would be a good place to start in improving the article. However, your statement that "pretty much the whole article is actually about an e-zine of which few people have heard" is subjective. How do you know how many people have heard of it? I have no interest in debating this further. But what's wrong with the Meat Puppets? I wish I was one of them. (Btw, I appreciate you not saying/insinuating that I am a sockpuppet). --Myles Long 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Just because you don't know of them, doesn't mean many people don't.Countykid465— Preceding unsigned comment added by Countykid465 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep. As part of the PLA I know that the Phonelosers are part of technolgies history, they should be kept listed here on wikipedia!JuanGarcia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.254.11 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep. Why should we delete this? If Evan Doorbell gets one, than PLA should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.111.234 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia isn't a junkyard or free web space. Ardenn 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per Ziggurat. This information belongs on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 23:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, PLA is a very strong page on the internet designed for humor mush like Ebulms and else. I suggest this be keep as it is follows all rules. And for those of you crying Wikipedia is not a web host, they have their own page they don't need wikipedia.