Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best Page in the Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Note: The debate over this page has ended.

  • The Best Page in the Universe - irrelevant website. Why can't such obvious violations of established guidelines be deleted on sight? --Wik 05:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't delete the article, but delete irrelevant and inside-joke content. See Talk:The Best Page in the Universe, first subsection for a discussion about deleting the "Lou images" section of the article. The site is relevant. It's hugely popular, and Maddox is about to break out into other forms of media. Fix the article so that relevance is clear and so that it doesn't violate the guidelines. --pgscholt 01:46, April 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete (but after the 5-day wait, not on sight). Just some guy's blog, not really mentioned anywhere except on other people's blogs. --Delirium 05:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's not that well known to deserve its own article. Dori | Talk 05:12, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Alexa ranking is 4,069 is you use the http://maddox.xmission.com address. Angela. 05:15, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, Maddox gloats about how he has a higher Alexa rating than several fast food websites on one of his articles. WhisperToMe 05:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • While the 4,069 Alexa rating is for the entire domain, this states that 88% of traffic going on Alexa end up at Maddox.xmission.com -- http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=maddox.xmission.com WhisperToMe 05:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless it's particularly prominent in some way, move to List of blogs if we have, or want one; else delete. Salsa Shark 05:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Salsa Shark, a "List of Blogs" is right here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weblog#Example_Weblogs
    • Delete SpellBott 06:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Irrelevant. PMC 07:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, Wiki is not paper, and this article isn't vandalism Jack 07:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's actually pretty popular. Don't listen to me, he gives the statistics himself. Personally, I love it - Maddox is hilarious. →Raul654 07:11, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It ain't pretty, but it is popular. This "blog" combines x-rated language, parody and humour to draw a sizeable audience. He gets more hits than McDonalds, which he pans mercilessly. Has been around since 1997 and has several imitators - "The Second Best..." "The Worst..." etc. Sunray 10:32, 2004 Jan 13 (UTC)
      • Here's a sample [1]
    • Keep, but needs serious rewrite. Bmills 14:51, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: meritless. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's not a dumpster either. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The article could use some help in the writing area, but definitely keep. - Marshman 18:25, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - deletionism is running rampant around here - I have an idea for reform that I will put on m:deletion management redesign and Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion.The Fellowship of the Troll 19:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • keep -- the page seems to be more important than I initially anticipated judging from the article alone, but rewrite is needed -- mkrohn 20:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • more information: about 1000 times linked, about 1000 mentioned in usenet
    • I rewrote it, please review it and make corrections if needed. Apart from Alexa and the statistics published at the original website, How can I check how popular this website is and compare it with other sites? If it is popular then Keep, otherwise Delete. Optim 20:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's an incredibly popular site, we need an entry on it. punishinglemur 00:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, it's popular but not popular enough (top 1000) to warrant an entry IMHO. Imran 00:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • See http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.com/c.cgi?u=owned on why the "Top 1000" is too much of a restraint :[ WhisperToMe 01:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Maddox's site has grown to be a part of the internet sub-culture, and if wikipedia's goal is to provide an encyclopeida online containing all manner of information, there is no reason as to why this should be deleted. It is a very popular and well known site. It's like trying to move Slashdot to "list of news/tech sites". Don't delete. Nuada, Jan 14 2004
    • Keep. It's pretty popular and has been part of the internet sub-culture landscape for what seems an eternity. --MikeCapone 05:57, Jan 14 (UTC)
    • Contentless self-promotion. Nothing encyclopedic or even fresh. We spend too much time deleting stuff like this. Wetman 06:22, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 07:44, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Fredrik 08:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Self-indulgent nonsense. Move to "list of blogs" or delete. Puffy jacket 23:57, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Otherwise, where do we draw the line on vanity pages? A link to it may belong in other articles, but a description of the content of another web page doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This page is not remarkable enough to justify an article of its own IMO, and I think we should be conservative (deletionist if you like) on this point. Andrewa 14:05, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Andrewa, ever heard of this little thing called Alexa? I suggest you look up maddox.xmission.com on that. You'll know how significant it is when you do that. WhisperToMe 23:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmmmm. Irrelevant IMO. Are you saying that an Alexa ranking should automatically qualify a website for an article? Remember, we are discussing an article about a website. We do have articles about organisations whose sites rank lower, certainly. But we don't have separate articles on the websites of these organisations, nor should we. Still delete. Andrewa 01:02, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Websites ARE fair game to make wikipedia articles out of. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia articles based upon websites.
      • One more thing, you said that it can be rewritten. The article should not be listed to delete if there is a way to salvage it. WhisperToMe 02:19, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Yet one more thing... http://maddox.xmission.com/statistics/statistics.html
        • According to that, it's getting 25,000 hits/day which is virtually nothing when you're talking about major sites on the internet. All the normal statistical measures (Alexa, links to site, mentions on usenet, mentions in mainstream newspapers, mentions in books) fail to give any solid indication of sufficient popularity. If someone has any particular evidence for it's

importance (as opposed to it's popularity) could they give it. --Imran 02:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

    • Delete. Websites are fair game for a Wikipedia article, but this article is content free promotion. Don't wait for someone to rewrite it; just delete it and if anyone ever wants to write an encyclopedic article about the site then they can create the page afresh. 22:30, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • If a rewrite is possible, don't delete. Its better to wait around.
          • I don't agree with this. Suppose an article on an important subject has everything 100% wrong. It seems obvious to me that it should just be deleted, or, probably a better idea, replaced with a stub. Otherwise people searching for the topic will be given 100% wrong Wikipedia information for days, weeks, or months until someone summons the energy to rewrite. Tempshill 18:39, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • There is no possible way this particular article in question is 100% wrong. It talks about stuff on the website which... well... is there. It also says that the stuff Maddox says is about him is just what he says he is. There is no way to know if Maddox's description of himself is accurate. The "Rewrite" concept is more in the name of style than accuracy. WhisperToMe 18:43, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • And Imran, the evidence of what's significant is right in front of you. get on Maddox.xmission.com yourself and read the content. Its the controversial content and the mocking of authority figures that's so significant about this site, in addition to its popularity. And if someone is asking for an NPOV, please say how to NPOV. I don't see how its POV at all. WhisperToMe 03:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's the best page in the universe.
  • Keep. Wikipedia should be about what anyone wants it to be about. Wow, people, you guys take this stuff too seriously. This is an open-source encyclopedia. If someone wants to write an article, let them. If it's wrong, change it.

    "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it."

    Some of you people just need to get a frikkin life. Besides, if the "LIST OF FICTIONAL MONKEYS" can stick around, then there's no possible reason why you should delete this one. -MikeServ

A comment from the author


I'm the author of "The Best Page in the Universe." A reader pointed out the entry here and I felt that most of it was well-researched (and in case you were wondering, I had no hand in this). Whether or not you like the opinions stated on my site, it has become something of a phenomenon and to deny it would be a disservice to the original author of this entry. By word-of-mouth alone, my site has grown from fewer than 5 readers per month to the Herculean 4-million+ readers it has today (proof: http://maddox.xmission.com/stats1.gif ). To correct a few of the comments made here (at the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing), the site receives an average of 100,000 to 130,000 visits (not "hits") per day, moving over 700 gigs of traffic per month. My writing has appeared on dozens of syndicated radio shows, magazines, newspapers, books, and even a couple of TV shows and journals--and the site is still growing. Keep it or leave it, it's up to you, but you can't deny merit of this phenomenon.

Maddox, you rule. Andre Wong 15:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its being kept :) - WhisperToMe 05:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I had the chance of meeting and talking to Maddox once his chat room and really, he's just some ordinary guy, no different from me. Hardly different at all, from his music tastes to opinions to political views. My point here is, this ordinary asshole, this everyday guy, has a website that receives more visits, by word of mouth alone, than sites that spend thirty million dollars on their internet marketing campaign alone. That is a definitely phenomenon and one well worth mentioning. [[User:Destinova|Marlowe²]] 05:18, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's the point of describing a website on an online encyclopedia, anyway? Why doesn't someone just go to the website if they want to know about it? There isn't anything in this article that one can't learn by going to the website itself. And by the way, I don't think that is really Maddox's post. *(A posting made by an anon) --NoPetrol 00:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Like we can't have an article on Google? WhisperToMe 04:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It´s a satirical website, not nonsense. It belongs to internet(sub-)culture.
  • Keep. As WhisperToMe says, otherwise you may as well nominate Google and Slashdot for deletion too.
  • Delete. An ad for a blog. Wetman 03:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Alexa ratings more or less say that the blog is very influential on the 'net. WhisperToMe 22:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh, how many people go to Wikipedia and stumble upon this page without looking for it? --Headcase 04:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's popular, people want to know about it, we need an article on it. - Vague Rant 05:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maddox just had his 100 millionth visitor last night. He has the best page in the universe and if you delete his article you are stupid. Potatoeman57
  • Keep. Websites are allowed, right? This is a fairly big website, much more popular than other websites that have articles dedicated to them. Deleting this would be ridiculous. --Headcase 04:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe most people that want this article deleted hate Maddox. The opponents to these people probably love him. Whether you do hate or love him is irrelevant. No one can deny that Maddox is HUGE on the internet. So what better way than Wikipedia to give unbiased information (unlike his site) on his site? By the way, in my opinion, the article is somewhat POV material as of now. Reading stuff like he's macho is bullshit. Either write that he's considered macho by his fans, or delete that certain part. EliasAlucard|Talk 11:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously, it's not an ad, it's information about the blog. -Bestrest.
  • Keep. As much as I loathe Maddox, due to the massive number of dullards that take his word as dogma, I'm not going to blindly deny the fact that he isn't notable. It's called the Internet, guys. Apostrophe 18:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site is culturally relevant. -Gumbo T 04:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site is becoming very, very influential. Clearly (look how many people have voted) it is something worth knowing about. --Klestrob44 01:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'm suprised this is even an issue. There are loads of articles about popular websites or internet personalities, and this is one of them. Theres lots to write about it. --jeffthejiff 17:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Previous issues such as the Lou images and the like have been rectified, and I Think it flows quite well. Wasn't this discussed before and voted for keeping? Hbdragon88 23:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nothing should ever be deleted i suppose. (Note by SpectrumDT: What is this? Is it supposed to be a vote, or just a surly comment? Ought this line not to be deleted? SpectrumDT 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep I've yet to see one good reason for deletion.
  • Keep Maddox' website is very popular. And it is fully justified to have articles about websites. I agree with the above guy, I have yet to see a good reason to delete. SpectrumDT 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phenomenal popularity of the website is more than enough to merit an entry in this encyclopedia. Zab 12:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ppular site. The article could always be changed but I really don't thin it should be deleted. There are many articles nuch more delete-worthy than htis one. Just the fact thatt this whole discussion (and talk page) is so long is proof that quite a lot of people care about the site, so it should have an article.--Shadow demon 08:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would a site with more than 100,000 visits a day, be deleted? It's just an asskicking page worth mentioning. Gothrix 18:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is NOT blog,nor does it have ADs.Big font,black background,eye-friendly,and words like hammers of divine wrath upon popular culture,high ranking capitalists,famous persons I deeply hate but are counted as "famous and worthy" people.

It is simply the best page in the universe.--CAN T 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I fail to see how this page is notable. The site is a rant page, and there's nothing notable about rant pages. As for view count, Alexa ranks it at 26,346, which hardly seems notable (do all of the 26,000 pages above it also deserve an entry? How about the 75,000 below it?).Tom Barrister 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talkcontribs)