Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Wide Web War I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Nobody voting keep has demonstrated that the information in the article is verifiable from reliable sources. Thus, it's original research and by definition cannot stay. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Wide Web War I

No vote. Anonymous user 67.103.171.2 nominated this article for deletion, but was unable to complete the nomination due to not being logged in. The anon's reasoning, as posted on the article's talk page, is listed below. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I do not think this is a notable article. (Not to mention that it is hardly the first "World Wide Web" war.) I am going to list it AfD. Then we can all come to a consensus. --67.103.171.2 05:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Not notable, ridiculous self-important title, and (to my understanding) was self-created by those participating in the event. There is nothing here that can't be handled in the eBaum's Controversy section. In fact this article falls well short of already existing information in the other article. 67.103.171.2 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is knowledge, albeit knowledge not interesting to some. It should be allowed to stay, just as every other article here. - Loknar
    Comment. It should be noted that we don't allow any article here. Check the CSD and Deletion policy.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 17:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 06:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not really a notable event. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to "the Web War to End All Web Wars" or the "Great Web War", since we don't know whether there will be war reparations and resentment over the Treaty of Google leaidng up to a second world wide web war...yet. No, just kidding! Delete. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN. It's a battle between two tiny, crappy forums, and they post on Wikipedia calling it the "great world wide web war"? Don't make me laugh. Ambi 06:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment They're definitely not tiny, and the article claims there are more than two. Crappy? We each have our own things, remember to keep your own biases in check! ;) - Rudykog 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I made this article so that there would be a place for all the information instead of spreading it out between the YTMND and Ebaumsworld articles. Why not migrate all the information over to this one and make it a legitimate page? - Achristl 06:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I compiled the majority of the information that you want to "migrate" over. Sorry, but no. TheNewMinistry 06:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another example of rot-brained Internet "culture". --Agamemnon2 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How exactly are these events notable? The article requires a rewrite to explain this to someone reading about these events for the first time. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A well-written article on the subject already exists at this location:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ytmnd#eBaum.27s_World_incident TheNewMinistry 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not because "Internet 'culture'" is "rot-brained," but due to non-notability. Otherwise, simply redirect to existing content at Ytmnd. -Rebelguys2 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Lukas 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom--nixie 08:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to Keep, although I'd advise a rename. The incident itself has become sufficiently notable, but as of this point the name is an embellishment. --Antrophica 06:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the name is not common (80 Google hits). The article should at least incorporate information from the YTMND and Ebaumsworld articles which have far more information. — mæstro t/c, 13:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: this article speaks of a relatively small event that some believe will be larger than it is in the future. Avengerx 13:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite --ryan-d 13:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There have been other uses of the term (as early as 1996 [1] ) - maybe it could be a disambig page with a link to Ytmnd#eBaum.27s_World_incident -- Astrokey44|talk 14:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, forumcruft. Eusebeus 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Maybe, just maybe, there is room in the associated websites' articles to talk about this dispute, but it certainly doesn't deserve the honor of being called a World War. You can't just make up a name for something and put it on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless this somehow gets into real news (or if they invade Poland). FredOrAlive 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I speedily deleted this nonsense a while ago. YTMND got into a nerd/troll fight with EBaum's World; NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. --King of All the Franks 15:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge With eBaumsWorld and similar sites ComputerJoe 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need an article for a small struggle between two websites that lasted for two days.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 17:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per whatever. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's mentioned on different pages, which is redundant. It is quite notable as well, considering the list of sites that took place in it are well known and popular. (IE Newgrounds) --Zeno McDohl 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article title is OR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is hardly a "small struggle". The "war" is continuing. Tokakeke 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete minor forum fad. Gazpacho 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is hardly a "minor forum fad", it's an all out war between two of the biggest sites on the internet. Tokakeke 18:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you think YTMND and ebaumsworld are "two of biggest sites on the Internet" ...... *sigh* Cyde Weys votetalk 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is documentation of a legitimately significant occurance, internet history in the making. Records should be kept if anyone is to learn from what happens over this turn of events. Garbage Man 12:57, 12 January 2006
  • Keep. This topic is taking over the articles for the associated sites, and, as such, is becoming difficult to follow in that form. Besides, there are articles much more insignifigant than this one that have survived these votes. Also, I would like to point out that the people who are calling these sites "small" and such clearly have no knowledge of this subject and probably should not be voting. Dr Ellipso 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment None of the Keep votes I am seeing offer possible justifications as to why the article "World Wide Web War I" should exist. Who is calling it that? Who made up that name? Wait until the actual World Wide Web War I takes place and then write this article on whatever that happens to be about. I do not know with what weapons World Wide Web War I will be fought, but I do know that World Wide Web War II will be fought with acoustic coupler modems and TTY interfaces. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unimportant "event" whose participants have chosen to give it an arbitrarily pompous name. Lord Bob 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This event has/is garnering a considerable amount of online attention, and is showing itself to play a substantial role in the pressure that's been building concerning legality debates over ebaumsworld material. Kdevoss
  • Delete While this is an important event for YTMND it is not important enough to have its own article. The information on the YTMND article is good enough. Plus World Wide Web War I is a very silly sounding name.--Virulent 78 22:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It should have its own article, because it's going to be mentioned on the pages of YTMND, eBaum's World, Newgrounds, and so on. So it becomes quite redundant. --Zeno McDohl 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to the info on either the YTMND or eBaum's World article. It was pretty huge deal, had two pretty big websites going at it, and got a ton of attention, but not big enough to constitute its own page. I'd say keep it to the separate pages for now. I've seen this term commonly used for the whole debacle, so a redirect would work. ShadowMan1od 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I got very annoyed jumping between the different articles with information on this Wiki was the first place I came when hearing about this in order to get a un biased view and the lack of centralized article made this hard, it is redundant to have the information on multiple pages when a single centralized article could be created. This event is certainly notable, it involved many notable internet community for example something awful, newgrounds, YTMND and eBaum's World which are all considered sufficed notable to have there own articles. It is to be the subject of at least one radio show (real life not purely internet) and an article for The Inquire. It is also claimed that the FBI are involved, this IMO shows this is not ordinary forum feud. Though I agree that the name might need to be changed in the future I have heard many people calling it WWWW1, along with YTMND-day and the raid. --Elfwood 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know myself if WWWW1 is the absolute best name for this, but it made the most sense to me at the time. YTMND-Day or The Raid refer specifically to the attacks on Ebaums forums on Jan 7 and 8. That event is only part of what's been going on for the last week or so. That's why I named the article WWWW1. - Achristl 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename I see a lot of uninformed delete votes. This dispute involves some of the largest English-speaking Internet communities (2chan is freaking huge), with SA having, if I recall correctly, over 60,000 members. *reads* No, make that 70,000. I find the dispariaging remarks about Internet culture to be outright ignorant. If you think that Internet culture is irrelevant, I have seven words for you: all your base are belong to us. The Taped Crusader 01:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    All Your Base made it to Time Magazine. Has this? Melchoir 05:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If you think that internet culture is irrelevant, I'd like to direct you here. GreatGatsby 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    The information on Wikipedia is independently verifiable. I see no such claim here. Melchoir 05:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, probably rename and rewrite. This is a notable event and IMO there should be a single location (an article of its own) for information on it. Ergbert 04:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Where is the media coverage? Melchoir 05:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move/Merge Ebaumsworld, Somethingawful, Fark.com etc are mainstays on the Internet. I'm surprised this issue hasn't showed up on Slashdot personally, but the point is that this could turn into something significant. While I'm not sure how appropriate the title of the article is (I havn't seen it used elsewhere yet) the information is appropriate. EagleFalconn 05:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per this media coverage: [2]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:49Z
    • But Rename, suggest something more descriptive and less grandiose like "2006 YTMND-Ebaumsworld Internet war". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 05:51Z
    • Eh, that's a start, but it's a pretty weak source (the author, Nick Farrell, isn't even listed as one of their few contributors) and it doesn't address most of the detail in the article. I'll maintain my vote for now. Melchoir 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge wherever the heck. Or if discussees say this is to be kept as is, definitely rename. (changing vote, see below; the following rambling still stands, IMO.) I think some specific, single-shot issue between two sites hardly is notable enough for an article of its own - this stuff should be documented in the articles for the site(s) in question (or "History of (sitename)" subarticle if we're talking of some really freaking huge site that has a long history, like Slashdot for example - note that I haven't checked if either site has such subarticle and if not, I don't advocate their creation based solely on this incident). And no frigging way this is a "war", unless it's fought by 12-year-olds in their basements of their ancestral birth-homes, in which case it's just mislabeled as such. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. It is not just two sites, it is several notable internet sites, including YTMND, 4chan, LUE, LUElinks, Newgrounds, KNova and many others. There is also the fact that it has spilled in to the real world, including FBI involvement and “vandalism” (read a piece of paper on a door) of eBaum's World head office. There is also a real life radio show on this subject, which is going out at Saturday at 3pm Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time. Though I do support a re-write and a re-name, this AFD should be able weather an article on this topic should stay and not weather this article should stay. --Elfwood 16:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Those are "notable" now? I haven't even heard of any of these sites except for ebaumsworld and YTMND, and frankly, I wish I had never heard of them, because all they've ever done for me is to cause people to forward me really crappy links to stupid things on websites. And AFD is Articles for Deletion, not Topics for Deletion. This article needs to go. Nobody is calling it "World Wide Web War I". If someone wants to merge some of the information into the relevant articles on these sites, go for it. But this article name is ridiculous and speaks volumes for the trumped up self-importance the sites involved in this spat have. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some are nn I will admit, but YTMND, LUE (part of gameFAQ), Newgrounds (how could you not have heard of newgrounds I don’t know) and eBaum's World are all very notable. And so is Something Awful if it was involved. My comment about AFD was just meant to mean that the fact that this article is badly named is not a good reason to stop (or make difficult) a future better named article from being created. Also I have heard people call it WWW1 along with the internet war the creator of this article did not make it up, but that dose not stop it being a bad name. --Elfwood 17:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So apparently the criterion for whether an article should be deleted or not is whether you've heard of the parties involved? If you really haven't heard of forums like Newgrounds or 4chan, that just means that you don't really know enough about this subject to judge whether it's notable. Your comments regarding "crappy links" pretty clearly betray your own bias against the subject matter, so I wonder why you care about this article in the first place. Also, Elfwood is right about the name. I didn't make it up, I just saw that other people have been using it. A re-name is fine with me, but a bad name does not a bad article make. - Achristl 18:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Delete - Apparently the other articles have already included this particular information in much better, rewritten form, so this article is completely unnecessary. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not really a World Web War, surely, but even then it's a little piece of internet history. Why not just leave it be? User:Youlikeyams? 16:19, 13 January 2006 (GMT)
    • Hrrmm, you should fix your vote then, it should read "Delete, it's not really a World Web War." --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment You mean it should read "Keep, rename". --Zeno McDohl 17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no need to merge. This is a minor disruption between two sites that doesn't deserve to be covered. Ral315 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not everything that "merits" a paragraph on The Register merits an article here; cover in the articles on the participants. --&nbsp;Kbh3rd 16:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. This is hardly non-notable; the incident included a DDoS attack that broke 24 hours of continuous operation, and that's just for starters. This is very important to understanding the impact that eBaum's profiting from others' copyrights has had on the Internet, and beyond that it's an important sociological phenomenon on it's own. Forget Internet culture for a moment. This shows just how far thousands of people will go to protect the rights of someone they barely even know over principle, to the point where they're going to lots of trouble to coordinate without a central communications location. Dismiss it as the petty actions of 12 year olds if you want, but it's clear that it was not. This was the culmination of a long-strained situation that was brought to it's breaking point. It wasn't a needless tantrum; it was an action borne out of the knowledge that nothing else was going to be done. It illustrates several aspects of social dynamics as they relate to the Internet perfectly. Rogue 9 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, those who find internet culture non-notable need to pause a moment and consider the logic there. Why is it not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia with the lofty goal of collating the sum of human knowledge, will it also exclude information on Andora as non-notable since most people in the world wouldnt know where to start looking for it on a map? I'll also add for those whinging about media coverage that I am a journalist and I know for a fact another journalist I am friends with will be devoting his radio show this weekend to the event. The show is on australian radio in Hobart, and is called Chez Geek. There will be a webcast of it in addition to a regular broadcast, but there does seem to be a good chance of it getting /.ed. --Fearghul 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Where are you getting "goal of collating the sum of human knowledge"? Verifiability is policy, and notability is tradition around here. Yes, I demand media coverage, because as it stands the article is a load of speculation. What justifies these edits? Who came up with the list " YTMND, 4chan, LUE and sister forum LUElinks, Newgrounds, KNova"? Why should I believe there were "crippling attacks"?
    This AfD seems headed for no consensus, and there is speculation of the appearance of reliable sources in the future. That's fine. Maybe the article will be verifiable in a month. In the meanwhile, I will personally be content with the cleanup tags, as long as the article gets a respectable name. Melchoir 19:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In 5 years time, what will this article be worth to anyone? Aside from that, I hardly think this little feud deserves the dubious honour of being the "first" internet war. And to suggest it encompassed the whole WWW is ridiculous. --L T Dangerous 19:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that the World Wars encompassed every country on the Earth at that time? BocoROTH 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The WWs did have a major impact on the whole world; economically and socially. I don't see how this "world wide web war" had an impact on any site other than YTMND, Ebaum's World and maybe two or three other sites.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 11:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's amusing and tells the story of a well-known event. Needs to be somewhere --User:Anonymous 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This attack is unprecedented in historical terms for the internet, and may represent the way conflicts are eventually handled on the internet when government/law enforcement doesn't get involved......sort of the era of internet vigilantism MPerdomo 19:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to the "Controversy" section of EBaum's World. I merged and redirected a similar article, YTMND Day, to that target a few days ago, and this one should be treated the same way. If we want to spin this off as a separate article once things stabilize, we can do it then, but for now it makes sense to keep all the info on the subject in one place. -Colin Kimbrell 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the point was to make this article that centralized source, it is redundant to have the information on Multiple different articles (YTMND, EBaum's World and others) and many people believe this event is notable enough to have its own article. This information will be the same weather it is part of a larger article or a dedicated one, so I see no reason for not creating it now.--Elfwood 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's been a day, and the apparent mission of this article is not doing so well. The two camps of redlinked users are not only uninterested in editing each other's articles, they seem uninterested in improving this one. Instead of two redundant articles, there are three. Sigh.... Melchoir 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This article was created at 05:23, 12 January 2006 it was then listed for deletion at 06:11, 12 January 2006. People will not want to do what is a lot of work on an article that could be deleted and as shown by the times above they really did not have a chance between the Creation and the listing to do so. If this article survives it should become the main article on this subject with little effort and a link on the pages on all involved parties. Though some one may want to put some thing on talk pages to the effect of put all information about wwww1 (for want of a better name this will do for now) in this article. --Elfwood 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I nominated a stub immediately upon its creation a few days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three cards and a top hat, and it would have been deleted if a couple of editors hadn't taken the opportunity to improve it, both expanding and citing references. I find that an AfD is the best way to attract positive attention to a failing article on a worthwhile topic (not that I abuse the tag to that end). This AfD is extremely visible and active, and the article remains in the doldrums. Of course, I can't object if you ask others to help out here. Melchoir 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But its not happing on this article (possibly because people are editing the information on the other pages covering this), take my attempt to get a discussion on a possible new name started, Rudykog said we should wait to see if it survived the AFD, even though if we could show that the name would be changed as soon as we are able it would help the article stay. I would try to edit in some more information but I dont have time with my exams. --Elfwood 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "wait to see if it survived the AFD"? If that's what the supporters of this article are doing, it's ridiculous. We cannot vote on a hypothetical article that doesn't exist yet; we can vote only on the article we have, and that article ought to go. Melchoir 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, and "WWW War I" is a rather pretentious title for a feud between several borderline-mainstream websites. --El Zilcho 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 00:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or, better, merge and redirect, because no notable source has given this event the title "World Wide Web War I" and there is not enough information to validate an article separate from the ones already existing (i.e. eBaumsWorld controversy section).--vekron 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I know that to some people this may seem boring and stupid, but, as an educated man (I'm not some emo teenager) this is worth noting. If wikipedia can have a page for the movie spaceballs (good movie by the way) it can have an article over a MAJOR INTERNET EVENT. I don't think you guys understand that thousands of people were a part of this. This is the "first ever grand scale" massive strike against a website. Whether you agree or disagree with the attack, that is irrelevant. It is your duty as a provider of information to not exclude something because it is not "pretty" to look at. Life is not always pretty. We cannot plead ignorance to events which do happen. This is real life stuff, and as long as we stick to posting the facts, which will fully come to light given time, these articles are of real merit. --The mk 555 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Spaceballs was a movie produced by a major movie studio. It had a budget and theater take both measured in millions of dollars. How you can even begin to compare this nothing of a conflict to that is beyond me. And if you think this is the "first ever grand scale massive strike against a website" ... where have you been these past few years? Yahoo was taken down by a DDOS. Microsoft was almost taken down by a DDOS. Whitehouse.gov has been DDOS'ed. Compared to this incidents this little forum spat is nothing. Hell, have any of these sites even gone down? And nobody's trying to censor anything or "hide the unprettiness of life". I'm sorry you feel that way. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but merge with EBaum's_World. Not the first "World Wide Web War", nor (barring further developments) worthy of its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IceWeasel (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 January 2006.
  • Comment May I just remind everyone who's voting "merge" that this article is orders of magnitude inferior to the same content found at either YTMND or EBaum's_World. There's really nothing to merge; you may as well simply vote "delete". Melchoir 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sigh... I should have guessed that someone would vote "merge" right after I said this. Melchoir 18:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, with something, at least until there are any more developments in it. --Bky1701 10:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: You have GOT to be kidding me. So someone lies, sends in a nonoriginal work, and suddenly, this is the biggest Internet event in the past 10 years? eBaum's world already has a section on this, YTMND already has a section on this, I frankly think that's more coverage than this deserves. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the point of this article was so that those sections could be removed from the eBaum's world and YTMND articles or at least greatly reduce them and then link to this article. The YTMND-day section on the eBaum’s world and YTMND pages are taking over there article, why should we have 2 separate massive blocks of text on articles covering different topics when we could have one sterilized one.--Elfwood 15:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with eBaumsworld. If it actually turns out to be something big, perhaps with eBaum being sued, then it should be remade, in my opinion. If it just turns out to be some isolated attacks on each others' servers, no need to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.198.162 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2006.
  • Rename. I'll amend my earlier vote; although this is a significant event, it does not encompass the entire World Wide Web. How does "Ebaum's War" sound? -- Garbage Man 11:58, 14 January 2006
    • The problem is the Wikipedia policy "no original research". You can't just make up a neologism for something that has happened. The name itself has to be notable or you have to use standard naming syntax, such as "Controversy with eBaum's World". Also, may I point out that calling it "Ebaum's War" is very POV, and actually rather misleading. Let's reserve the word "war" for real wars, okay? A childish spat between various online sites does not qualify as a "war". --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least rename. Has anybody notable called this event in this way? David.Monniaux 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No one whatsoever. It's just a name invented on the spot within the past week and no one voting Keep in here seems to realize this. And frankly, I find it rather insulting to even begin to call this spat anything remotely approaching a World War. Millions of people die in World Wars. Sure as hell no one is going to die in this. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I am sorry but that is incorrect. I have seen people call it both WWWW1 and the internet war both before the creation of this article. Also a bad name means the page should be re-named not deleted so there is no reason for the keep voters to justify it. --Elfwood 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter at all if you "have seen people call it that". Are these places you saw it verifiable sources? No? It's just some forum posts somewhere? I rest my case. I highly recommend you read up on WP:V. Just because some people online call it that doesn't make it a notable name. And all of the content on this page is already contained in YTMND and eBaums World and the information there is better. There is absolutely no reason to keep this page. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
          • If you had bothered to read my comments you would see I want the name changed. I was responding to your erroneous comment that it was made up for this article not that it was a valid name. --Elfwood 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The bad name is simply symptomatic of the problem that the writers of this content are personally involved in it and have no perspective on its importance, along with all the usual problems listed at WP:VANITY, including WP:NOR. Melchoir 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The situation is notable, however, I don't think it's earned the name. For now, sections on the pages about the relevant sites is fine. If it spreads widely or becomes complex enough that more space is needed to fully describe it, then its own article ("Content Conflict with Ebaumsworld", maybe) for a detailed version would be a good idea. -- Jake 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sooo.... delete, right? Melchoir 18:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Eh. Redirect, probably. -- Jake 19:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, until the real World Wide Web War I happens :-/ Cyde Weys votetalk 19:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's not being called a world war (lots of people dying); it's being called a World Wide Web war (people fighting on the WWW instead of in real-life). Ergbert 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, possibly rename--this event is notable among certain circles, but they are LARGE circles. User_talk:SkunkyFluffy
  • Delete, idiocy. Adam Bishop 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia's existence on the World Wide Web makes WWW antics seem very notable to some Wikipedians. This is an illusion. silsor 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's just nothing that can be said about this spat that's encyclopedic. This might change if it's covered in Wired or something (and that would give us a name, too) but it isn't. Demi T/C 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and nuke from orbit. Wholly and entirely unencyclopedic. Wow, 70,000 users. There are more people than that in my city, and it's not even the largest city in my county - and certainly not every single thing that happens in my city is encyclopedically notable. The fact that people created great forumdrama is not unique, it is not notable and it is not verifiable by secondary sources. Nor is it in any way the "first" time some people got pissed at each other on forums and started DDOSing each other. Get back to me when someone actually *dies* in this "war." Until then, it's just a bunch of people arguing, and we all know that arguing on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. FCYTravis 01:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough for it's own article, unencyclopediac.--Sean|Black 04:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if the Background section is filled with much more information about what ebaum has done regarding using other's material and claming it as his own so he could make money off of it. Otherwise, it's hard for most people to understand why this seemingly minor theft of an animation was the straw that broke the camel's back and turned this into a real battle.
  • Delete. Why is this even here? Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Enough information is already given on the YTMND and Ebaum's World pages. Anomaly1 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I still support deletion, but I wonder, if the article does get deleted, can we BJAODN Natalinasmpf's self-reverted warbox? Melchoir 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber 06:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=%22verifiability,+not+truth%22 Melchoir 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And that's a major problem; there are plenty of lies that can be sourced. An encyclopedia should be in the business of providing truthful information first and foremost. This is not to say that everything that is truthful should be in an encyclopedia, but a policy stating in effect that truth is irrelevant doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Rogue 9 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • My point was rather that truth is not nearly enough. Truth alone is worthless to us. Melchoir 09:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - This user votes "Keep" on everything except for patent nonsense and libel. And I would argue that this doesn't exist, at least not under the name "World Wide Web War I". If I throw something together out of clay in five minutes I get to have an article on it because "it exists" and it's not patent nonsense nor libel? That's a ridiculous voting "policy". --Cyde Weys votetalk 07:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a fellow who has stated that everyone in the world -- everyone -- is notable, and that that everything that has ever happened -- everything -- is notable, too. So weigh his comments accordingly. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ludicrously puffed-up "war" between groups of people despearately in need of hobbies. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be a paragraph in the EBW article, if anything. Jeremy Nimmo 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if not for Wikipedia, I would never know about this "war".  Grue  14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Uh, isn't that the point of Wikipedia? To teach you about things you don't otherwise know about? - Achristl 15:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The point? Teaching? I seem to recall something about building an encyclopedia. Melchoir 15:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, that's not the point at all, Achristl. Wikipedia upholds a zero-tolerance policy towards original research. For that simple reason, Wikipedia is not meant for teaching the public things which they otherwise wouldn't know about.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this pompousity. It has no business being called a "World War". BallSack 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, having the same info on the articles about the sites is more than enough. 'World wide web war I' is just a random term someone made up and gets 71 google hits. - Bobet 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it is funny.Night at the Opera 15:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't tell me Eternal September is happening to us. Melchoir 15:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • that is offensive. Night at the Opera 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Please, you want to keep an article becuase it's "funny", and you add cleanup tags to it with the summary "lol, templates for the hell of it". Melchoir 16:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • take a look here sense of humor. Night at the Opera 16:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Having a sense of humour is delightful, but I'm not entirely sure how voting based on funniness and throwing on templates because you can helps build an encyclopedia. If this is more your bag, I suggest Uncyclopedia, where a sense of humor is essential to the core aims of the project. Lord Bob 16:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per MPerdomo. -LtNOWIS 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What, not the "dawn of an era" argument? Can't we wait for someone else to make that claim? WP:NOT a crystal ball. Melchoir 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just some arbitrary term someone made up. --W.marsh 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be covered, if at all, in the web sites for the individual forums.--SarekOfVulcan 22:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Let's forget this article ever happened. Ashibaka tock 23:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A record of this is important

Keep! It may not be the at the level of war yet, but such things will happen sometime, and having some reference for scale is important.

  • Speedy delete This entire stupid "war" is being faught on all sides by self important egotists and is entirely non-notable. All pages relating to it should be speedy deleted on the grounds that wikipedia is not the place to wage "war".
  • Delete - Relevent information already posted on the respective entries, no need for a broad page on the sujbect. - Hbdragon88 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spat already covered in the website articles which doesn't require its own article (and certainly not under this overblown name). --G Rutter 16:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Name is absurd. - Halidecyphon 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_World_Wide_Web_War_I_e67a.html"