Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wehatetech

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 delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wehatetech[edit]

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}}.

nn podcast (I know, that's pretty much redundant). A grand total of seven Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no no no, theres nothing wrong with it, leave it be, go deal with more important things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 1 (talk • contribs) (only contributed to Wehatetech and AFD)
""NON DELETE"" Who is to say what is a "notable" cast and "non-notable" cast? NOT YOU. Don't like it, listen to TWIT or something else. - Kmac1036 (talk · contribs)
Strong delete - Original research, non-referenced. - Szvest 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]
Delete quickly as non-notable per above --Quarl 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, but if /. and iTunes claims can be verified make that Keep. That's contingent on someone less lazy than I doing their homework though. Haikupoet 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random podcruft. Influenced by a large proportion of apparent sockpuppets, unsigned votes, etc. Stifle 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE wehatetech.com has been spamming digg.com to get better google ranking.
wehatetech has a Google PageRank of 5 (Digg has a 6). 3000 listeners, actually shows up on alexia. Listed on Itunes as perferred technology podcast, most popular anti-technology podcast. It is quite notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerves (talk • contribs)
- Metacomment: User's first edit. --Quarl 04:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- www.wehatetech.com has Google.com rank of 0, and Alexa rank of 323,934 (see WP:WEB for criteria for inclusion) --Quarl 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Per website rank I could see this. Our primary function is a podcast though. Please take into consideration the podcast instead of the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerves (talk • contribs)
You delete this, then you delete ALL the podcast Wiki articles. There are far more inappropiate pages on here than this one. Gee, so much for free speech. - Kmac1036 (talk · contribs)
- Metacomment: User's first edit. --Quarl 04:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) comment deleted by KMac1036, restored by Dvyost[reply]
- Agree with you, we'll delete all the non-notable podcast articles. --Quarl 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Other podcasts like This Week in Tech are allowed a Wikipedia article because they are notable due to the fact the hosts are well known. --Peter McGinley 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Includes some pictures/links to backup some statements. More will be coming soon. If the site doesn't meet requirements to stay on the wikipedia based on that then well at least we know. Xerves 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. "We Hate Tech" has as much right to a wiki as "This Week In Tech". If "We Hate Tech is deleted ALL podcasts, not only the "non notable" podcasts MUST be deleted.Anticitizen_1 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.163.50 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Undelete Evidence presented on the Wehatetech "wiki" shows a parody site with emphasis on narration and commentary. The websight in question involves more than simple "hate" but, for simplicity sakes "hate" was used to offer a generalization of the stories. The site also contains technical support hints, parody audio (public domain) and various other elements that make this a necessary entry into wikipedia. Please reconsider deleting this or if it's already deleleted please restore Wehatetech. Wiki is in imporant fixture in the internest and Wehatetech would offer value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.101.86 (talk • contribs)
Just give us a chance to straighten things up a bit... At least listen to one of the podcasts before you decide to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.212.158 (talk • contribs)
WeHateTech is more legitmet that TWIT anyday. We are the real tech workers and censoring us and keeping TWIT shows Wikipedia has no backbone and does not appreciate the common man's views. Prepackged, witless shows like TWIT are spreading like fungus and are threatening to turn the web into the pile of programming garbage that is Cable and Network TV. The web thrives because it is where you can go for true dissenting opinions, it is the common mans printing press and as such should not be subject to ANY censorship. Wikipedia have some cajones! You know deleting this post is wrong and you will do th right thing because you have not sold out to TWITS and such, have you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.124.18 (talk • contribs)
Delete not notable. The sockpuppet spam just seals the deal for me. -- MisterHand
Delete. NeoJustin 18:14, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete Way too much trashtalk & too many references to their homepage:a Flamer & Spammer. Go away. --Motorbikematt 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet scam? If that statement along doesn't warrant this article staying around I don't know what will.
Delete as per nom (note I voted to delete this previously but my voted was deleted by an anonymous edit, maybe because I didn't sign) TheRingess 03:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and amazingly bad behavior by site proponents. --Dvyost 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My talk page experienced some moments of Wehatethech from Anticitizen 1 (I asked him to change his username/refused violently (taken care of by an admin) and Kmac1036 (talk · contribs) (taken care of by another admin) . Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up}

You pitiful beings. You just don't get it. This is not about free speech, democracy or making a statement. This is about amassing encyclopedic information. If you do not qualify for encyclopedic importance, no amount of sniveling, threats or irate outbursts will change that. --Agamemnon2 15:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains, no matter how much people hate us or what horrible things we did (there are plenty of articles in wikipedia of people who did horrible things) this is all that matters: http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Are there guidelines for podcasts yet, I have yet to see one? Anything there can be backed up upon request. Anything else you have to say can be taken to the article about the podcast. Just because I might be a Bush hater doesn't give me the right to delete him off the face of the planet. Xerves 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to reach consensus when most posters are literally blowing this article away:

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

We all have agendas, just play this one by the numbers Xerves 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. --Daveb 15:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. rodii 21:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.