Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Machine Music (game)

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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 22:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Machine Music (game)

nn site, majority of edits to this page have been either vandalism, blanking, or reversion of blanking see:talk:Metal Machine Music (game) for more info regarding previous blankings. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Reads like an advert. Delete. Agentsoo 22:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• As the owner of the site, this article needs to be deleted. People who are far to cowardly to discuss their problems with the site openly have used the article to openly attack us, and the moderators here have allowed it to occur. Deletion is the only solution we can settle for at this point, my staff agrees to this point, and so do my members. If this is what the owners of Wikipedia consider "fair and balanced", I pity anybody who has to endure their services being listed here. Delete - Don McGunigale
• As a staffer on MMM, I agree that this wiki should be deleted. It was a good idea at first, and while I can perfectly respect criticism, the edits done to the article went past that. Given the choice, I`d personally try to rewrite that to reflect all sides in an unbiased manner, but ce la vie. Let the thing die and rest in peace. Delete - The Sh33p
• The so-called "Vandalisim" has actually been a desire to present a more fair and balanced point of view. However, as MMM's staff can't stand criticisim, they won't be happy unless they can control this article. So I say Delete in order to avoid furhter controversy. unsigned vote by user:202.92.76.129 -- Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Note that the previous unsigned user was the person who threw in the erroneous information in the first place. Note also that they have a record of vandalism. Doesn't sound like "fair and balanced" to me. I vote Delete simply so that we don't have to deal with people like that anymore. ~AA
• This computer is a part of an office network - as such there are numerous users under the one IP adress. As such, the "vandal" is just one of many users who would register under the one IP.

That being said, veiwing the article from a neutral outside viewpoint does leave me with a desire to comment. The "clean" version of the entry reads more like an andvertisment or blantant promotion then an encylcopedic entry. The "vandalised" version reads like the work of somone with a personal grudge. I would say Delete, but I would also add that the article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. --202.92.76.129 22:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC) (But not the same one as above)

• As another user on the same network as the previous poster, I feel that its worth mentioning that someone on this IP knows a lot aobut Zoids - check the other edits by the same IP address for proof. All the other articles they've created or edited on Zoids thus far have been well done and, in my opinion, free form any bias or the like. Having no experience with "MMM" thus far and not knowing anything aobut Zoids, I can only assume that they are rather knowledgable on the subject, and that their statements on the subject in the other articles are reasonably informed. Of course, that proves nothing, as it could be the work of two differnt people, both of whom are knoledgeable on the subject (But with one of them having a considerable grudge or possibly a vaild reason for his edits to the article). At any rate, I agree that htis article is not encyclopedic in nature and more pormotional, and should be Deleted --202.92.76.129 02:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Delete for non-notability, but "weak" because I don't like what I see as being the stronger motivation behind this deletion - i.e., someone connected with this particular subject is basically not comfortable with it appearing in a wiki. I do realize this has become an unmanageable nuisance for those involved, but look at it this way: What if, say, Karl Rove decided he didn't like what people were writing about him on Wikipedia? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• We tracked the IP to a member of our forums, and from there, we tracked that name to another forum where personal grudges against our site run rampant. Just for the record. ~AA
• Delete. To put it one way, the article is not something you would find in an encyclopedia. Just because you have a personal grudge against a site doesn't mean that you should be using something akin to an encyclopedia as a soapbox for your cause. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it shouldn't be taken too far. -- Pkninja
• Delete. Not an encyclopedic entry; it alternatively reads like blatant propmotion or blatant whinging. Either way, it should go. --144.138.25.8 22:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• As the authour of the Various Zoids articles done on this IP, I do feel the need to comment here (Yes, I have no connection to the others in this IP above). I was not responsible for the "vandalisim" to the MMM article; while I have had some overly negative experiences with the MMM staff, at the same time I would not stoop to the level of defecing a Wikopedia entry on them as a measure of revenge or similar. Despite this, I must agree with the earlier comments; this article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place and should be Deleted, not for the reasonss of Vandalisim or the like, but because it simply is not encyclopedic and the original article was more likely an attempt at free promotion. I must also agree with Gyrofrog ; I feel the MMM staff are being too thin-skinned about this; they must understand that in an article like this, critcisim is a possiblity and they should not try to "control" what is said aobut them. --202.92.76.129 23:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Considering that said criticism is actually completely erroneous- we have proof- and stemming from a site with a history of disliking us? Last I heard, this was a site for disseminating correct information, hrm? Don't add things that you obviously have no real knowledge in!

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.