Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Gay Plaza"
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
This page should absolutely NOT be deleted. I see The Gay Plaza as something of a cult classic - it certainly isn't just your run of the mill low scoring site. When I first came to the wiki, I expected to see sites like this covered. It's memorable, it's been highly sponsored and it's been favorited a number of times. Sure it has no spin offs, but a lot of great sites have never become full blown fads. (Anyway, how could you do a successful spin off of The Gay Plaza?) I strongly feel we should keep this article. [[User:Significantbullet|Significantbullet]] 19:05, August 26, 2007 (CDT) | This page should absolutely NOT be deleted. I see The Gay Plaza as something of a cult classic - it certainly isn't just your run of the mill low scoring site. When I first came to the wiki, I expected to see sites like this covered. It's memorable, it's been highly sponsored and it's been favorited a number of times. Sure it has no spin offs, but a lot of great sites have never become full blown fads. (Anyway, how could you do a successful spin off of The Gay Plaza?) I strongly feel we should keep this article. [[User:Significantbullet|Significantbullet]] 19:05, August 26, 2007 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I personally don't see the problem with allowing this site to live. Sure, nothing links here and probably nothing will ever link here; but, its not really hurting anything or anyone. However, I think someone should at least put in a few wiki internal links in here so its not a dead-end page. --[[User:Mikeycomicsinc|Mikeycomicsinc]] 10:44, August 27, 2007 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:44, August 27, 2007
Someone had this in the article request, decided to kill some time.--Centralbandit 02:38, July 27, 2007 (CDT)
good thing this page exists. the site has no spinoffs, and not a very good rating, so it's unlikely to be remembered for very long. this is a good way to immortalize any site that the community rejects.
so we're just going to make articles for any old piece of shit site then? nominate for deletion. seconded? - MasterSitsu
I personally think the gay plaza is garbage, but it was in the article requests. Some user actually spent the time to edit the article requests wanting to know some back-story on this site. As a member of the ytmnd community, I fulfilled that request. I see this wiki as not being any different from other wiki's immortalizing users such as joshcube, michaelwolfson, or harrisongantz.--Centralbandit 02:41, July 28, 2007 (CDT)
A site that generates over $200 in sponsorships by multiple users is definitely noteworthy. I don't have a problem with the site having its own article, but if you really think it's useless it could be deleted. BTape 03:48, July 28, 2007 (CDT)
we could make pages for the 8 sites that have been sponsored more than this. wouldn't be too hard, most of them actually impacted the culture and are already on the wiki.
Agree with nomination for deletion. We should just combine all the wikis for the sites that have donated a bunch of money into one article and title it something noticeable. We don't need to be making individual pages for crappy YTMNDs like this. - Prog
This page should absolutely NOT be deleted. I see The Gay Plaza as something of a cult classic - it certainly isn't just your run of the mill low scoring site. When I first came to the wiki, I expected to see sites like this covered. It's memorable, it's been highly sponsored and it's been favorited a number of times. Sure it has no spin offs, but a lot of great sites have never become full blown fads. (Anyway, how could you do a successful spin off of The Gay Plaza?) I strongly feel we should keep this article. Significantbullet 19:05, August 26, 2007 (CDT)
I personally don't see the problem with allowing this site to live. Sure, nothing links here and probably nothing will ever link here; but, its not really hurting anything or anyone. However, I think someone should at least put in a few wiki internal links in here so its not a dead-end page. --Mikeycomicsinc 10:44, August 27, 2007 (CDT)
