Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Textfiles.com

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Textfiles.com was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

Article about the website textfiles.com. I'm not listing this article because I think it should be deleted, I'm trying to establish whether this site is notable enough for its own article. The Alexa rank by the way, is 63,872. Wyllium 07:48, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Google also results in a paltry ~ 186,000 hits related to "TEXTFILES.COM". *yawn* —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think mere google hits make a site notable enough for its own article. Porn.com receives 768,000 of them. Wyllium 08:22, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
Are you suggesting porn.com does not deserve its own article? Of course neither alexa rank nor google hits should decide whether a web site or other topic deserves an article. The merits of the topic should. The web site notability page says that most agree that an alexa rank of 250 000 or more probably doesn't make a site notable by popularity alone. Textfiles.com is notable for other things than popularity (read the article). — David Remahl 08:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think it's better if we stop arguing and let people decide for themselves what to vote on this one. Wyllium 08:30, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
You opened the channel for discussion. Your request to squelch has been denied. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bite me. Textfiles.com will bury you with the bones of your own children, and will be remembered long after you've turned to dust. I appreciate that chmod was nice enough to create an entry about my site, and about me into the bargain, and I especially appreciate that it was factually correct, but the simple fact is the retards have won over the kitchen. Alexa ratings determining the viability of listing a site? Come on. Apparently Wyllium's "work" and "creation" on Wikipedia is to delete others' work. Good job, Hitler. Here's a bucket of your closest friends' eyes. --Jscott 07:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Sigh. What did I do to deserve that kind of attack? Just to put things in perspective, this user's page solely consists of the phrase "Wikipedia is a failure" (edit:now he it's replaced by another text). Once again, I'm simply trying to establish whether that website is important enough for its own article. If it is, there will be enough keep votes and you'll have nothing to worry about. Wyllium 08:12, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
    • Wyllium, my 7 year old son could have easily done the necessary footwork on Google to realize that this site is highly notable, on par with the Internet Archive (archive.org). Quite frankly, it's appalling that you would so carelessly VfD a page without doing an ounce of homework beforehand. This is an abusive waste of VfD subscribers valuable time. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What did you do? Someone obviously worked hard on the page, for likely a few hours, and then you come along with your fairy wand and try to dump it into the incinerator. Here, they probably call you a fine and good admin, but anywhere else, you'd be the two legs sticking out of the bathtub. Keep going with it, though. I'm sure life will "VfD" you eventually. --Jscott 08:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not an admin, I'm a user just like you. Also, I would appreciate it if you tried to be civil. Wyllium 08:18, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
        • You're a user who wants to be an admin. mmm, deletion. So much easier than working at researching a subject, checking for facts, and adding something to the core of human knowledge. How civil is it to travel along through articles, trying to save a few kilobytes of text on Wikimedia's hard drive, all in the name of "notability"? 150,000+ people visit textfiles.com and its sites a month. And guess what, they all hate you. Even the girls. --Jscott 08:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Although user JScott certainly isn't racking up any points on VfD, he didn't ask to be featured on Wikipedia either (as you will note from my talk page). While I share some of his very own sentiment regarding the silly bureaucratic waste of time here initiated by Wyllium and others for no other reason than to see if it passes the magic "test" -- a definition which, by the way, seems to change from day-to-day -- this does not detract from the fact that TEXTFILES.COM itself is an extremely noteworthy site which has been cited in several books and, yes, even encyclopedias as it is not just an archive, but an aggregator of archives which has drawn world-wide attention and is a primary source for people everywhere to obtain files from the BBS era, its many subcultures and their extensions. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I created the article, but still maintain that I can look at this with some objectivity. Keep. Textfiles.com is one of the few sites of its kind and holds very large amounts of information related to several subcultures. It has been subject to articles in mainstream media such as Wired Magazine and several Slashdot articles. Googling for "textfiles.+com" -site:textfiles.com gives 19 600 hits. Note that it is in no way "vanity". In fact, the site's proprietor outright opposed my creating the article on User_talk:Radman1 yesterday and said that he'd do whatever he could to get it unlisted. — David Remahl 08:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. For future reference, that's a pretty high alexa rank
(Above comment left by 130.95.128.51, please log in for your vote to be included.) —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Angel Tiger 08:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. contributions. — David Remahl 08:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Suspected sock puppet vote by Angel Tiger. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Angel Tiger isn't even a good name. At best, it's a low-grade firework. --Jscott 08:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know if anybody is trying to discredit me with this, but that is CERTAINLY NOT my "sockpuppet", and I don't like the insinuation that it is. As with all suspicious votes, this ones should be ignored. Wyllium 08:48, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a well put together article, and I don't think the "textfiles.com" namespace is highly contested - plus, there's a page for totse ;). The site owner certainly isn't interested in doing himself any favours though. *sigh* --Hn 09:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I would be delighted and amazed for you to tell me what favours Wikipedia could possibly do for me. --Jscott 09:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deletionists have to accept that "notable" does not mean "I've heard of it". Wyllium, I'm willing to remain civil but I have to say I somewhat agree with Jscott. 186,000 hits means *someone* is noting the site, even if it's not you (not to mention that you guys use the Google gold standard when it suits!). Why are you so keen on ridding Wikipedia of others' hard work? Please. A presumption to keep. If you suspect it's borderline, let it be. Don't list it simply because you feel we ought to be creating another Britannica.Dr Zen 09:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Once again, I don't want it to be deleted, I wasn't sure so I put here to reach consensus. Wyllium 09:21, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
      • Some people have suggested that every new article should have to go through some sort of review before being visible to everyone on the site. Are you suggesting that review should be the already hideously overloaded VfD? — David Remahl 09:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not saying we should review all articles. I'm saying that articles that are borderline notable should be put up for voting, which is, I believe, what vfd is for. Wyllium 09:28, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
          • No, borderline cases should be kept, not deleted when they're only a few hours old. That way one can see what happens to the article before possibly listing it for deletion. Borderline cases are unlikely to get the required 75% delete votes, anyway. — David Remahl 09:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • David, you are exactly right. It should also be pointed out that Wyllium naively nominated Textfiles.com on VfD less than 2 hours after the articles creation. For this and so many other reasons this nomination qualifies as abuse of the process (IMHO). —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Please. There's no need for that kind of talk. An article can be nominated five minutes after its creation, and many are when they are entirely spurious. Let's all assume good faith and try not to have too much fun kicking the shit out of each other.Dr Zen 09:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • We're well past fune Look at all the time we wasted here. Look at all the time wasted with others having to read this. Look at the meaningless procedural arguments, the wasted breath on people who won't move a budge. How one slack-jawed yokel from distant lands could just blow someone else's good work out of the water, leaving it thrashing in some sort of overwrought voting chamber instead of being improved and added to. Think of how much this is going on. Every day. All the time. And you think the Right and Good and hard-working will win? When there's a veritable tireless army of people like Wyllium who spend more time destroying than creating? Have you figured out why textfiles.com has over 100 gigabytes of content? --Jscott 10:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • Nope, I think Wyllium will win ultimately. I think editors such as you and I will be driven out one by one. They'll delete all the articles on subjects they know nothing about and they'll have created a Wylliumapedia of their dreams. Still, it passes the time.Dr Zen 10:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • 1) You've stated elsewhere that you don't care whether wikipedia ends up "approving" of your site or not. Well apparently you do care, and you care a whole lot, or else you wouldn't be wasting so much of your time spouting vitriol here. 2) The article is not "thrashing in some sort of overwrought voting chamber instead of being improved and added to" -- articles can still be editied and approved when they're on VfD! In fact, the VfD template even states so! 3) The point of VfD is for people to vote for deletion, not argue about it while trading needless insults incessantly. So far the vote seems to favor "keep," so I really don't understand what you're going on about. PenguiN42 17:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
                  • You're confusing spouting vitrol with defending. It is one to me if the article is deleted or not deleted. You're confusing the amount of energy I expend "fuckin' round" with the normal amount of energy people expend when they care about something. That's why there's a lot of citation about how much work I do in other circles; I'm just one of those people. I don't expect such energy to be obvious here in this informational opium den, where people have been choked down to the point of near inaction because all their crap's going to be edited, anyway. Work ethics, boy. As for VfD not stopping progress, that's true, it doesn't lock the article from writing, but it's a heck of a chilling effect for the length of the VfD. That's why there's been basically no edits on the article while it's here. I don't have the time to research, but I'll bet if you check any VfD'd article in the queue, its edits slow to a relative crawl while the monkeys fling VfD poo. As for what I'm going on about, I'm going on about 210, but my low-carb diet is kickin' some ass. --Jscott 22:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable premise and contents, respectable hits. Samaritan 09:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the good reasons stated above. JesseW 09:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with Samaritan. I also suggest that everyone here makes no personal attacks. Doubts about an article's notability are (imo) a valid reason for a deletion nomination. Discussing inclusion-worthiness of articles is the goal of VfD, not an 'abusive waste of (...) time'. Sietse 10:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, even though the site's owner is clearly a grade A tosser. -- GWO 13:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, even though I wish I was deleting so I could be attacked because of my ignorant, but none-the-less good intentions. Hey, I have an idea, lets beat our chest and scream real loud and maybe it will scare the ones we don't like away. Might makes right and all of that. Yes, I know saracasm is a passive form of aggresion. ZaQ 13:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree completely with ZaQ and Sietse, though. In this particular case Wyllium obviously had good intentions, and I don't think he deserved all the attacks by Jscott, whose massive contributions to Wikipedia consist of edits to like 5 articles, loads of comments on VfD pages and an unfinished essay about Wikipedia being a failure. Sigh. Jashiin 16:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Jashiin, please try to refrain from personal attacks. It is very important that we must all remain civil. --Jscott 16:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Long, long ago, I wrote that the one thing we ought to do on VfD is state our opinions, and not try to prove them. The trouble comes when people don't just want to succeed, but they want to win. They want to drive the young of their enemies wailing in lamentation before them. Don't do that. It's not healthy. When you get angry, it raises your blood pressure, takes time off your life, and doesn't hurt the person who angered you at all. No one should be attacked for making a good faith VfD listing, and I am personally getting somewhat saddened and irritated by people who attack other well-meaning folks for making the nominations. If it's a mistaken nomination, we'll all know really soon, because there will be a string of "keep" votes or no votes at all. Not that I won't fail to live up to my own advice sometimes, but let's at least make the effort, eh? Geogre 16:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Geogre, I have to point out that VfD is for articles that the nominator thinks should be deleted. If you want to test the water there is RfC. Wyllium listed an article that clearly had content, created by a member of good standing, shortly after it had been made, claiming he wasn't sure whether it should be deleted. If he had put it on RfC I don't think he would have faced the same opprobrium. He could have written to the editor who created it to discuss the article. I'm sure he listed it in good faith, with the full intention that an article he personally did not like would be voted out by you and others who do not think Wikipedia should broadly cover net phenomena, but there has to be another way to share concerns about articles that are not so utterly dismissive of the hard work of other editors. Can you wonder that the editors involved will be upset at this kind of behaviour? While "Delete what I don't personally know" is a guiding principle here, this kind of conflict is inevitable.Dr Zen 23:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • So, you are convinced that anyone who disagrees with you must be deciding simply on what they like? That seems particularly churlish of you. I believe Wyllum when he says that he could not tell from the article whether the subject was notable or not. We have hoaxes, troll sport, and pranks that come along with great length. However, instead of giving him credit for simply making a mistake, you are encouraging others to believe that it's a plot? I'm not. Anyone who makes a good faith nomination to VfD should not be attacked for doing so. Just vote keep, and leave it there. Do not go taunting, baiting, or making infinite interlined comments...like these...please. Nothing good comes of it. Geogre 01:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Giving benefit of the doubt to Wyllium, I hope he did have the most honorable intentions. That aside, the Alexa and Google hits indicate a strong interest and the main article establishes a strong case for Wikapedic notability. GRider 17:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it pains me to vote this way. The site is sufficiently notable; in fact I'm surprised it didn't have an article before now. —Triskaideka 17:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Site is notable. However, I think that Jscott's behavior is really reprehensible. --Improv 18:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • A quick glance over your user page doesn't exactly make me want to send you cookies and Segways either, sweetheart. --Jscott 18:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Jscott is ticking me off, but he probably doesn't care, and when it comes to deletion votes, neither do I. Keep. Lord Bob 18:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Those whose "veteran" computing experience starts with Netscape 2 in 1997 (or after!) won't have any reason to understand the significance of textfiles.com (and Jason Scott's other projects, such as BBSList.com) as an (if not the) archive of non-Internet online history. But it is significant. Textfiles.com was the subject of talks at DEF CON every year up until 1999, and his site (as well as others) is widely recognized in the traditional and underground computing communities. (I sat next to him on the plane on my first 'Con trip, so I'm biased, but that doesn't affect the points above.) As for JScott's attitude, if it is in fact Jason Scott, he probably simply does not take Wikipedia seriously. And neither would I, if it were seriously considering deleting an article on textfiles.com. After all, textfiles.com is as much an archive of BBS-era knowledge as Wikipedia is of Internet-era knowledge. Considering deleting it is almost mass-hypocrisy. No, I don't think that's exaggeration, either. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:57, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wow, I saw this VfD coming even before the article was written! I read on chmod's userpage that he was going to write up an article on it, and heard a distant thunder of controversy storming on the horizon... The information probably would be better placed at a T-files or Textfiles article, but as it is there's nothing wrong with it. Ashibaka tlk 19:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am currently undecided and request more facts. A google search returns 186k hits. However, the same search excluding returns from the domain "textfiles.com" itself yields less than 20k hits. Based on a review of the first 100, many of those are low-grade hits such as automated indexes. (Low-grade meaning that they do not contribute to the argument that the website is independently notable or encyclopedic.) For a computer-based resource, I would expected far wider discussion. I consider the Alexa ranking too low (high?) to establish notability. Has this site been used by academics? Has it been repeatedly cited in major independent press? By the way, kudos to KeithTyler for admitting his bias to keep based on his personal knowledge of the website owner. I will admit to my own bias toward delete which was formed solely by the hostile tone of the comments by Radman1 and User:Jscott. Evaluating facts is hard enough without having to wade through irrelevant personal attacks. Rossami (talk) 19:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You know what the cool part is? I really, ultimately, don't care if this article is submitted for deletion or wins a reprieve. The longer it stays on Wikipedia, the worse an article will get. If I sat around twiddling my thumbs, waiting for approval of textfiles.com from the likes of person I tend to see on here, then textfiles.com would never have been finished. Doers, not talkers, win out in the actual world. But at Wikipedia, the talkers can always overcome the work of doers. I appreciate David Remahl wanting to bring me to what he percieves as value, that is, a Wikipedia entry, but really, if I want to get judged by a jury of my peers, I'll go punch a hot dog vendor. Otherwise, you can all go hang. Even the good guys. --Jscott 19:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Doers, not talkers, win out in the actual world.
        Is that why you're spending so much time here wasting keystrokes on something you admit you don't care about? :P [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]]
      • I've ceased work on any articles or other aspects of Wikipedia beyond these comments, so it's a pretty refined effort. Also, you have no idea what's in my other windows. It takes a stupid amount of time to render DVD-ready video. --Jscott 20:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow, and I thought you were just trying to get reactions. Typical of people that never grew out of BBS and Usenet type communication models. As I have been reading your responses I had been flashing back to the days when I ran an old VBBS. But here you are! Defending yourself. Not typical of a rabble rouser. Not typical at all. Bravo, I thank you for the supprise. I allways love curveballs. As for your defense, it is weak at best, being that it could be used by any of those ole talkers. Do you not find it in the bit ironic that you host a website that is nothing but talk? ZaQ 23:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • That's me, stuck in the past. I like it here. It's warm and I've gotten really good at Zork. That said, though, your instigation tools are rusty and sad, left off from your VBBS days. Store them in the shed, next time. My website is more than just talk, but you know that, you big silly. --Jscott 23:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, and a big old "bravo" to all you lardasses who use Google as your final arbiter of all that is Right and Good and Worth Being On Wikipedia. How do you think Google gets all its data in the first place? Do you even think stuff through to its logical conclusion anymore? You are all voted off my island. --Jscott 19:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • "Major independent press" is selected as today's oxymoron ;-). No really, being a subculture means that at least for the time being, you're ignored by mainstream media and academia. In addition, textfiles.com, like Wikipedia, is a secondary source. Remember how we urge researchers to go to the original sources for their citations, and not cite Wikipedia directly? Using CiteSeer, I found an academic paper using textfiles as a source: [1], but I'm not that good at looking for this kind of thing. I'm pretty sure the site archive is referenced one way or another at practically every hacker convention (I know it was on the fifth H.O.P.E.) and in hundreds of ezines. — David Remahl 20:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Jayjg 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable website. Alexa rank is 63,872. Compare this to the alexa rank of Wikitravel or Wikinfo. anthony 警告 21:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although it looks like nobody is actually questioning the article anymore... Sippan 21:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jason, please stop over reacting to the VfD which, though IMO shouldn't have been initiated, was done in good faith, and please stick around long enough to realise that the characatures of wikipedia written by Encyclopedia Britannica editors (who obviously want to keep their jobs) aren't real. By the way, a reminder to those who think that the Alexa/Google rank is low: this is a niche website, so those ranks are impressive. The textscene is no less notable/encyclopedic than the latest role play game. Joe D (t) 23:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Check my history. I was here long before the Britannica guys came long to whiz in your oatmeal. My decision is final. This part is just to make sure fools are marked as fools. --Jscott 01:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought I already voted, but couldn't find it in the list. It must've gotten misseed in the several windows I had open. As I llook through the list, there's a whole bunch of keeps, one undecided, one suspect delete, one suspect keep. The vote is unanimous. The poster doesn't even want it deleted, why are we discussing this? Why is the RaD man article the only one getting near this much talk? Because these people are passionate about what they do. And people like it. Theese people are historians and they love it. Do I need to say it again. they are historians, They are the recordkeepers for the digital area. They are the digital age presidents of the louvre. There work is the important work of this age, to preserve the history of the early coputer age. abuse McKay 00:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. Textfiles:BBSes::Wikipedia:Everything Else. Alkivar 01:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, and Civility before adding a comment. I seem to recall reading this somewhere... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep article about an important cultural resource and delete the guy who undermines himself each time he posts. Gazpacho 11:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Tmh 14:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable. --fvw* 16:17, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
    • I'm curious as to what you think isn't notable about it.
      • The only description I've seen of notability is "know it when I see it" :-/ In any case, since there is practically no risk the article is going to be deleted at this point, I suggest we take a page out of Geogre's book and stop arguing with the those who vote delete. — David Remahl 04:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Voting delete out of spite for the idiots associated with this site who are being so rude about it. --Fastfission 16:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Way to go! Delete the article written by a 21 year old student in Sweden because you're offended by the behaviour of a 34-year-old computer historian in Boston, USA. See, that's the power of the Internet. --Jscott 16:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Is there enough evidence here in these discussions to allow a statement in the Textfiles.com article that Jscott is an asshole without it being POV? :P PenguiN42 17:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • You Judas! That's it, you're out of the will. --Jscott 22:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I will fully grant I have been an incorrigible bastard.... to Wikipedia. In other venues and junctures, I like to think I project a more mature and helpful aura. I am, for example, very proud of my work here. --Jscott 17:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Fundamentally I have to agree that deleting a topic simply because you don't like the person behind it is the epitome of childishness. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:35, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • I concur with Keith. Frankly, I don't believe that this vote should be counted, because it is not in compliance with the wikipedia deletion policy. If he has a real argument it should be stated.McKay
      • Guys, there's no chance of it being deleted. If there was, I'd change my vote. To my knowledge I can vote for whatever reason I want, but anyway, it doesn't matter, it's a symbolic vote and done with that in mind. The behavior exhibited by these two is well beyond the pale of anything usually on Wikipedia and I think that this deserves note; there is no excuse for it, they ought to apologize. This is the sort of thing I'd expect out of a petty BBS ten years ago, not Wikipedia. --Fastfission 05:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • The wolves who raised me always told me to rise beyond the pale. Also to strike the children first, who can't run as fast. I'm glad we've been able to help you relieve your online past! --Jscott 05:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep despite the totally unwarranted personal attacks. I've gotten into enough heated arguments on this page to know how frustrating it can be. I sympathize with Jscott but I'm convinced he pulled the trigger way too soon on Wyllium who appeared to be acting in good faith. Deep, cleansing breath, everyone... - Lucky 6.9 20:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 00:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. This site is way more important than many other sites with articles here. User:Wyllium should not have listed this for deletion. But now, this discussion can be ever-preserved along with Jason Scott's classic comment "Here's a bucket of your closest friends' eyes.", so at least it's not all for naught :) ~leif ☺ HELO 00:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that the submitter withdraw the entry now. It looks like most people trying to prove a point, including him, have either done so or given up. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:56, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Since this vote is already so much about Jason Scott personally, I want to add some NPOV. :) For those who would like to form a more three-dimensional view of Jason Scott, I recommend that you listen to this recording of his speech at the Fifth H.O.P.E. He even mentions Wikipedia towards the end of the talk (in not quite as degrading terms as above, I might add, but also not completely positive :-)). — David Remahl 06:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Jason's taken his ball. Wikipedia simply isn't for him. I don't think he had to be a raging bull about it. Perhaps he was trying to prove something, but I know not what. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]]
  • Strong keep. Andre (talk) 19:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. First 15 hits are for [something].textfiles.com, as are many of the other hits. 63K Alexa ranking is pretty low for a site that covers so many topics. Niteowlneils 23:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
if you would have bothered to take the time to look, you would see that it is simply server load balancing. Different categories of data go on different servers. when you average more than 100,000 hits a month, you need to do this merely to remain functional! Its no different than say en.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, etc... Alkivar 05:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site is notable; I had heard of the project; and is a sufficiently interesting and worthwhile endeavor to rate an article even if its notability were borderline. This vote refers to the article and should not be interpreted as condoning incivility or rudeness. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; request censure for the immature posters referencing deletion "out of spite", reccomending "bite me" and other personal attacks. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; the noteworthiness of the subject (site) is independent of the occasional tiresomeness of its perpetrator. Hoary 08:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Calling the general behavior in this discussion "tiresome" is like calling strychnine "indigestible." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • First: Check the edit history before you attribute edits to me that I did not do. That is not appreciated. (You should also probably see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Extreme article deletion. I have nothing to with it.) Second: If you are going to tell me that I should not do something, please do me the courtesy of directing me to a page of rules or consensus to that effect. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 06:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Textfiles.com&oldid=1104606803"