Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Random insanity

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 20:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random insanity

A GameFAQs message board, with little impact outside its core group. Joyous (talk) 03:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 03:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 03:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think its mention in GameFAQs message boards is enough. Ergbert 21:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

non-vote spewage deleted Zoe 05:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• I find this RI article to be useful. I even discovered some events that occured in RI from this article. I urge you not to delete this... Mewtwo_X

• Obvious delete. Worst sockpuppetry I have ever seen and the anon who wrote it was on a vandalism spree, including making death threats. He be gone. - Lucky 6.9 04:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, retoring my vote which was lost in the vandalism, as per nom.--nixie 04:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I reverted the vandalism, so I struck this out...Is that okay? I'm new to VFDs. Ergbert 05:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would love to see this article on a Internet Forums Wikicity, but it doesn't belong here. Ashibaka (tock) 00:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Anti-delete. Although the article isn't an extreme seperation from the whole, it does give some information about what goes on in a large cut of GameFAQs. (Also, Lucky, you can't just say that because of some vandalization, this should be deleted. The article is known about by many less-than-rational RIers. The authors cannot, and should not be blamed for the vandalism.)- Koneko-hi 21:57 CST, Monday, September 5, 2005

• Uh...yes I can and yes I will. You should also know that sockpuppet votes are heavily discounted. - Lucky 6.9 03:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• What exactly does the sockpuppet votes have to do with me? If you're making accusations, they're fruitless without ground.- Koneko-hi 15:27 CST, Tuesday, September 6,2005.

• Actually, you should have typed that as "they're fruitless without ground."  :) That said, your very first edit was to the article in question not three days ago. All of your subsequent edits have been to this discussion. You have no user page, no talk page. You have the right to defend the article, but as I said, coming seemingly out of nowhere and making your first set of votes to a page that no new user would even think of coming to, well, I hope you get my point. Nothing personal. - Lucky 6.9 22:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• You have a logical point. Why would a new user care about a page? Truth be told, I don't know why, but one obviously does. But, if you see it illogical that a user would want to defend an article he contributed to, I suppose I've no right to dispute this. I see your point, but you seem to underestimate that small percent. Most new users wouldn't, but obviously one did. Illogical, due to my lack of contribution and having no name here... I suppose what's done is done, though. I've stated my opinions, and although there's little logic behind my random appearence and voting, I have right to do so. Until you can prove your accusations with something more than your opinion about newer users being silent and falling in line, you still have no grounds. Thank you, and have a nice day. - Koneko-hi 22:54 CST, Wednesday, September 7, 2005.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.