Talk:Group hug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grouphug.us was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE

website advert. Sorry guys, no hugs from the Heresiarch today. Go hug yourself, OK? NB: anyone thinking grouphug.us is about some kind of group therapy or something needs to take a look at their front page before voting. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP. I have been to the website for ages and I think it's hilarious. I like the site. Yes, it's not exactly group therapy, but there is a sense of "Sharing" going on, as anything said (true or not, some of the stuff is hard to believe, but then again, Truth is stranger than fiction) is read by somebody somewhere. Sorry that it does ruin your faith in humanity, but just pretend those entrys are fake. Gonna remove Bash.org because it's not a site that you like either? --TIB (talk) 01:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel icky saying this, but keep. It's a pretty popular site, according to Alexa. Needs a better (less misleading) article, though. — Gwalla | Talk 03:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It is pretty funny, and it's more popular than most sites that get listed on VFD (Alexa rating 90,226).. but I still say delete, I don't think Wikipedia would be enriched by 90,226 articles on subjects such as this. —Stormie 03:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I clicked your Alexa link, and it's telling me that the rating is in fact 88,832 A 4 thousand increase since VfD, and we're getting rid of it? Explain that to me. --TIB (talk) 06:27, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Exactly. When a listing on VfD alone causes a fourfold increase in the ranking, one must question the notability of this site. Deepak 14:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A mere description of a minor website, not telling the reader anything that he or she couldn't learn in thirty seconds by visiting the site, has no encyclopedic value. If there were significant information about a website (involvement in litigation, the President mentioned it in the State of the Union address, somebody committed suicide because of it, etc.), then I could accept an article even if the site fared badly on Alexa. JamesMLane 04:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • 90,000 is too high. Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:01, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete It may be fun, but if this is all there is to say about the site, then it's unworthy for inclusion. ClockworkTroll 06:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and help distinguish Wikipedia from DMOZ. --Ianb 10:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep That site has like over 9000 confessions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.225.216 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: An article about affection and alienation in the Internet age and all the ways people have attempted to use the inherently impersonal medium of the Internet to recreate and reincarnate the person to person world would be fun and in-depth, and it would include a discussion of this site, among others. Geogre 13:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 15:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, do me a favour! Delete. Deb 17:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Unless this article gets a major rewrite, delete. RickK 20:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • So you're saying since it's just a stub it's bad? Eh? --TIB (talk) 00:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would wager that, since it isn't a discussion site, it's doomed to never become more notable than it currently isn't. How many teenage entries on "I really want to kiss [name of person]" could anyone possibly stand to read? func(talk) 22:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's by an iranian, I guess that makes it sorta notable. But then again, if you want to see teenage entries, just surf bash for a few hours. We have an article on that. --TIB (talk) 00:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • [sigh...] Neutral, (and I'm removing VFD from my watch list, coming here is somehow depressing, [I don't know how you do it all the time, Geogre]). func(talk) 00:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Shoot, man, VfD gives me the illusion that I'm helping. The thing that depresses me is New Pages patrol. That makes me very, very sad, and I can only do it in short bursts. Here, I keep thinking that I'm helping to set the world aright. (And there's a medicine for that, I'm sure.) Geogre 01:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry if I upset you, I was just expressing my opinion, that was not meant as a personal attack (as you seem to have taken it that way). --TIB (talk) 01:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
        • Oh, no... I didn't take anything as a personal attack. I concede that the points you made are strong enough that I would prefer to be neutral rather than cast a delete vote. I was just making one of those dramatic "asides to the audience". func(talk) 01:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • "I was supposed to pack a parachute when my company was assembling a space probe, but I forgot." Heheh. Weak delete, can't see prospect for much expansion. Lacrimosus 08:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I was hoping for some expansion myself, because this site is funny, yet there is not much background info. I was hoping a lot of info would "pop up" like it did for Something Awful, which has barely any of that information available on its own site, at least that I can find. --69.92.23.31 02:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep only if the article improves; more discussion on the phenomena of random, anonymous confession in the Age of the Internet would be interesting; qv [1] and [2]. Even if an article on the site itself can't be made into a wikiworthy article, the concept surely can. --Rossumcapek 03:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article got me hooked - deserves to stay. though something deeper than just advertising it would be nice. Barneyboo 18:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I expect the site to continue to snowball into its role as an Internet institution. Ground 01:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll use the good old "Wikipedia is not paper" argument again. --Farside 19:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

Have the owners of grouphug.us ever, uh, gotten in trouble with the law? The stuff that's posted on that site, while hilarious, is some of the most horrific shit you could ever lay eyes on. I mean many people on there are basically making public things that are downright illegal. I'd be amazed if nobody has threatened to have this site removed before.

How is a list of illegal actions in itself illegal? Isn't that what the police report in a newspaper is? Being able to anonymously confess their actions is not encouraging people to commit the horrendous acts we see on the site. 68.228.80.106 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm this is my first post so plz excuse any mistypings... but uh, On the topic of legality, i mean, there is a major difference between a police report and grouphug.us. In a police report, it states crimes that have been committed and the people needing capture or those caught. In grouphug.us, you can find people making threats on a life, that is crimes that are to come, whether its people saying it about themselves, family, schools, or presidents. So yeah, just wanted to mention that, but i still think it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.12.2 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "NN"

The website is notable. It has received massive press coverage, receives millions of hits, and the author has published an anthology of its contents to much acclaim. Why is this template on the article header? I removed it, but "Haakon" reinserted it. It also receives 35 million views per week, on average, and is the source of much controversy. If that isn't enough for inclusion I don't know what is. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be notable, but it seemed to me that you removed the nn template because you found the article interesting or useful, and would like it to be kept for that reason. This in and of itself does of course not establish notability, so I reinserted the template. I may have misunderstood your reasoning, and Group hug may of course be notable (though notability should be documented in the article). Haakon 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Misunderstood resolved. Aaрон Кинни (t) 18:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

Is there a template on wikipedia stating that the article has been controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.191.25 (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)