Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AARM

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 keep, no consensus, but with a reasonably strong suggestion that merge would be acceptable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AARM

I'm not so sure that the "continuous cleanup" done by user Hyperbole is the correct procedure. It separates comments to the votes from the votes and adds some more votes where Hyperbole assumes how they are intended. (Assumptions might be correct, but I'm not sure if this counts as a vote). Only comments as to who is, in Hyperboles view a possible sockpuppet included in the votes section. Revert would delete some valid votes. On the other hand, the present state of the page makes it near impossible to find out who said what in reaction on what. --Irmgard 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was simply doing my best to keep this page coherent - and I think the fact that I specified two "assumed" votes against my own position and only one in favor of it speaks to that. I won't do any more reformatting; I'm fairly certain I've honestly and accurately represented the vote count, but upon reading the guides, I realize that the vote counts aren't even the point here, and that admins don't necessarily make decisions based on their quantity, so obviously what I did was pointless at best. So, I'm sorry. --Hyperbole 16:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information I see no reason why a minor unmoderated atheist forum (less than 200 members) deserves a place in Wikipedia Irmgard 19:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is not a FAQ, a list of quotes, a travel guide, a memorial, a news report, genealogy, a dictionary, or any of the other "indiscriminate information" listed in the policy page. Rather, it is a page on a forum populated by nearly 200 members, without which an NPOV examination of CARM and Matt Slick would be impossible. There is an ongoing campaign of attempts to censor any perspectives on those subjects that are not POV-in-favor (see the discussion pages to those articles), and as this is a subject that is of interest to hundreds of people, and improves the NPOV quality of discussion of the aforementioned articles without necessitating burdening the articles themselves with all this information, I would strongly advocate keeping it. --Hyperbole 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the fact that some people feel their views are censured because they are banned from a moderated forum for violating the forum rules is about as uncommon as an umbrella in rainy weather - and it happens in discussion boards of every worldview. And that such people then move to a forum or open up a forum with different rules is also nothing new or special. Any moderator of a moderated forum could tell a dozen stories like that. (BTW I'm neither moderator nor registered user at the CARM discussion boards nor in any other way affiliated to CARM). --Irmgard 21:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Irmgard. Having moderated forums for years, AARM is one of thousands of insignificant rooms set up for attacking other boards where they were removed, etc. It seems that the AARM participants, hyperbole as an active member, are seeking to promote their chatroom in self-promotion, also against the rules, in linking the boards constantly to wikipedia articles, which is against the rules and guidelines. There are no articles written on the AARM forums, or papers written by experts in the field. It is a chat room and does not deserve any attention. I vote for its removal and for an admin to please review the behaviors of the editors to CARM, Matt Slick, John W. Ratcliff sections with the editors constantly reverting to linking to aarm discussion boards in all the articles, attempts to attack Matt Slick by linking to chatrooms containing anonymous users, and using wikipedia as a soap box for a group of posters removed from discussion boards for rule violations.Interested Party 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Interested Party has multiple usernames, is currently evading a block for violating the 3RR (as she is the same user as Tom S 48), and is here on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of attempting to remove any and all material critical of Matt Slick and CARM, attempting to make those pages entirely POV-in-favor. Her vote for deletion of AARM is therefore entirely unsurprising. --Hyperbole 22:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To the administrator Will, I am not Tom S. actually he is my brother-in-law. I am editor Interested Party and you have blocked three different people. This will be reported. Interested Party Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry" Peggy Sue is my sister.

[edit] Jennifer

My name is Jennifer, I am a stay-at-home Mother of four from Alabama and I am entirely tired of your demonic games. Get a life ....stalker!! Prove that I am Peggy Sue.68.62.227.47 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're presenting yourself as someone I've never met before - and you're "entirely tired of my demonic games"?? Well, that pretty much satisfies me that you're Diane. Hi, Diane. --Hyperbole 01:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Irmgard: We need an admin here to remove this person hyperbole. Someone with access to IP numbers to inform this person hyperbole that each person he is accusing is a different person WITH a different IP address in different parts of the country. Yes hyperbole, Jen knows about you, I have told her and many others on CARM, that every person signing on to edit the CARM articles is accused of being me, :-) she knows you are stalking the Matt and CARM articles, everybody does, look to your edits for the last three months, you are an atheist obsessed with Christian websits. I manage to be in Penn, Alabama, NJ, different addresses and I do it all in one day, yeah right. :-) Jen knows you hyperbole, also you are now signed on as Urbie, because anyone reading CARM is aware that you are an atheist that is slandering CARM daily in these articles. You can expect more to show up. As CARM informs people of your stalking these articles. Maybe I can be all 6000 posters on the CARM boards. :-)Peggy Sue 05:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind you that I wrote the first draft of the 'Matt Slick' article - all the uncontested bibliographical information, the sections on Slick's websites, the original perspectives, were all a collaboration between Falphin, mdavidn, and myself - and you showed up later. So the idea that I'm stalking you here on Wikipedia is nothing short of silly. And the notion that someone named Jen, who I've never heard of, and whose description resembles no one I've ever met, would suddenly show up and call me a "stalker" and say she's "tired of my demonic games" is incredibly strange; I continue to think she's another Diane sock puppet. Finally, I have never made a single edit with any account other than Hyperbole, and I have not made an edit anonymously since creating the account months ago. Tom_S_48 has *admitted* that you write posts on other people's behalfs - so while it's impossible to prove what's Diane and what's not, it's usually pretty easy to tell. --Hyperbole 06:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

(Compiled and cleaned up by Hyperbole, 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. Not notable. android79 00:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Woah, lots of talking. A 200 person board is non-notable. My local cafe's corkboard has more users. Sdedeo 02:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 05:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Eric119 06:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vote obviously intended by Interested Party (see above) --Hyperbole 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vote expressed by Irmgard above --Hyperbole 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not necessary Jenny1340 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly suspect this of being another sock puppet of the same user, along with Tom S 48, Interested Party, and Peggy Sue. The first thing this account did upon creation was to revert the CARM and Matt Slick pages and to vote on this page. --Hyperbole 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Further discussion moved to "Jennifer" section --Hyperbole 06:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into CARM. Theo (Talk) 11:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Is already mentioned in CARM and John W. Ratcliff and deserves no more than a mentioning. --Irmgard 18:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into CARM and John W. Ratcliff. There is some noteworthy info. It is hard to write encyclopedic articles about webforums. -Willmcw 01:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into CARM and John W. Ratcliff. I am the primary author of this page. I wrote it specifically because I thought it would keep the CARM-related pages cleaner to simply link here. I have no problem with the information being presented there. --Hyperbole 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - vote obviously intended by DigitalDrummer (see Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/AARM) --Hyperbole 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge is the best option present, while keeping a seperate AARM will prevent some edit wars at the CARM page it doesn't actually merit an article yet. Falphin 21:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -Content is very relevant to understanding CARM-related material.Urbie 18:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There is already a para with the most relevant points in the CARM article - further merge is IMO not necessary. BTW, user DigitalDrummer has 8 edits and user Urbie 35. --Irmgard 21:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. BTW, I'm just curious as to why you mention that I have 35 edits. I hope I'm not in violation of any Wikipedia rules. Thanks.Urbie 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes in controversial ones,(this one is not yet so that doesn't matter) users with few edits are not counted. If that happned Peggy Sue, you, the Interested Party, etc would not be included.(I believe three delete votes and one merge it would make) but there to discount votes yet.

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.