BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 It used to have one, but it doesn't anymore. And I don't like that. So I'm calling on you gents to make one. You see, I saw that the Death Valley Driver board has an entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_Driver_Video_Review) and I figured if that board can have such an ass-kissing, masturbatory entry devoted to it, then dammit we need one. I would start it myself, but I really have no idea what to write. So I give you this link, and I hope you all will do your best. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rks&action=edit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FroGG_NeaL 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 CWM should be able to handle this pretty easily. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 "This is the worst Wikipedia entry I've ever read." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Felonies! Report post Posted May 22, 2006 TSM SUCKS BALLS TSM SUCKS BALLS TSM SUCKS BALLS PORTER RULES THE WORLD AND LIVES IN SAN DIEGO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 TSM SUCKS BALLS TSM SUCKS BALLS TSM SUCKS BALLS PORTER RULES THE WORLD AND LIVES IN SAN DIEGO Not for long. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
k thx 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 I did a Wikipedia entry for TSM once, but when I sent it off it disappeared and I couldn't be bothered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Felonies! Report post Posted May 22, 2006 We'll need a section for the running gags. We don't celebrate ourselves enough. The article in question is an online fanzine, with nothing in the text to suggest that the fanzine has enough influence or renown to render it notable. Much of the text is dedicated to describing the forums of the fanzine, or to regailing the reader with somewhat puerile tales of the antics of the writers. The article is certainly long and in-depth, but this alone should not preclude it from being deleted. I think the authors of the article have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate why the fanzine is notable enough that it deserves an encyclopedia article (e.g. what is the circulation / readership of the fanzine?). Guys, we're screwed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 The article in question is an online fanzine, with nothing in the text to suggest that the fanzine has enough influence or renown to render it notable. Much of the text is dedicated to describing the forums of the fanzine, or to regailing the reader with somewhat puerile tales of the antics of the writers. The article is certainly long and in-depth, but this alone should not preclude it from being deleted. I think the authors of the article have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate why the fanzine is notable enough that it deserves an encyclopedia article (e.g. what is the circulation / readership of the fanzine?). Where did it say that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Felonies! Report post Posted May 22, 2006 Talk page, "recommended for deletion" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest StylesMark Report post Posted May 22, 2006 TSM needs a Wikipedia entry No. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 Wasn't there already one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 Wasn't there already one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 Wasn't there already one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 Wasn't there already one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 I never even got to see the entry as it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 Wasn't there already one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 I never even got to see the entry as it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 I bet it was really great. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 At least I hope it was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 It's not my fault I made a quadruple post. The board fucked up on me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 I typed in "The Smart Marks" and got redirected to "Smarks". I ain't no fucking smark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest StylesMark Report post Posted May 22, 2006 Same thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2006 I like how Konnan has a 5% relevancy to the search for The Smart Marks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murmuring Beast 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2006 And it rocked IIRC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Niggardly King 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2006 I was redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Eudy Sidney Ray Eudy (born December 16, 1960 in West Memphis, Arkansas) is an American semi-retired professional wrestler, most commonly known as Sid Vicious, but also as Sid Justice, Sycho Sid and simply Sid. A former two-time WWF/E and WCW World Champion, Sid Eudy is remembered more for his colorful backstage reputation. An avid softball player, Eudy was accused of feigning injury during important storylines to compete with his softball team and for a violent confrontation with fellow wrestler Arn Anderson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanhalen 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2006 Wasnt there already one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CWMwasmurdered Report post Posted May 24, 2006 CWM should be able to handle this pretty easily. Too lazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted May 26, 2006 The article in question is an online fanzine, with nothing in the text to suggest that the fanzine has enough influence or renown to render it notable. Much of the text is dedicated to describing the forums of the fanzine, or to regailing the reader with somewhat puerile tales of the antics of the writers. The article is certainly long and in-depth, but this alone should not preclude it from being deleted. I think the authors of the article have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate why the fanzine is notable enough that it deserves an encyclopedia article (e.g. what is the circulation / readership of the fanzine?). Oh, like half the articles there have any fucking merit... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
