Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACA Kid
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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ACA Kid
Prod was removed by editor with no reason. Sending this as a procedural vote, am voting Neutral on this. Wildthing61476 13:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as prodder. My original reason was "Being on a sensational current affairs show doesn't make one notable". MER-C 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Quick question from original author: Does this mean the original person who posted the Prod removed it, or someone else? I'm positive I left the template there with a note that I'd see how things develop over the next few days, so I just want to make sure nothing got screwed up that will prevent an accurate evalutaion of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aremihc (talk • contribs)
- I'm the prodder but I think an anon removed the prod tag (I didn't). Please sign your edits with ~~~~. MER-C 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It was another editor actually, not you. I've brought it here since by procedure if a prod is removed, the next step is AfD. Wildthing61476 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Will do, my apologies. Trying to learn this as I go. As I posted for short time, I'm going to see how this develops within my community and the internet as a whole. If I "jumped the gun" the entry needs to be deleted, but since it's a hot topic in society right now I felt it was deserving. Between the Truth in Video Game Rating Act, Net Neutrality, and Internet Addiction, I think the more references, resources, and discussion we can get about these sort of topics is in our best interest. Aremihc 13:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It was another editor actually, not you. I've brought it here since by procedure if a prod is removed, the next step is AfD. Wildthing61476 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the prodder but I think an anon removed the prod tag (I didn't). Please sign your edits with ~~~~. MER-C 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also going to repost my comments from the discussion page on the actual entry: Since this incident JUST happened, I am just using my intuition to tell me that this will be something well known within the gaming community, if not pop-culture in general. It is already the subject of YTMND wowcameron.ytmnd.com/ as well as a forum set up in the last few hours to find the online identity of ACA Kid. It is currently occupying nearly the ENTIRE General Board of the Official Forums, as well as several non-official WoW related sites. img134.imageshack.us/img134/5247/acact5.png As the story aired within the last 24 hours, we'll just have to see how this develops. I will continue to update the entry over the next few days to help determine if this is something worthy of Wikipedia. In the mean time I will append your template with a note concerning the possible short life of this entry. Aremihc 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is based upon what is, not what might be; and neither speculation nor idle chatter are bases for an article. If you've come to Wikipedia with the idea of reporting a breaking news story, then you've come to the wrong project. The newspaper, for news stories, is over there. This is the encyclopaedia. Events warrant encyclopaedia articles after they have been reported and subjected to fact-checked and peer-reviewed analysis. If you've come to Wikipedia in order to promote "discussion [...] about these sort of topics" because it is "in our best interest", then you've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reason. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Usenet is over there. Uncle G 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Now, see, some of that's just unneccessary. I'm an avid use of Wikipedia because it has info on nearly everything. It's not always Brittanica quality, but it's a start. I appreciate the moderators that legitimatedly want to filter and ensure quality on Wikipedia. MER-C seems to be one such. He raised a concern, I addressed it by simply saying we'd use the 5 days to see if the article was deserving of Wikipedia. No insults, no snide remarks, just a professional concern, and an earnest response. Your comment on this simply managed to offend me. Sadly, at this point I'm warring with myself over whether to get into this and essentially flush the entry down the toilet, or refrain from commenting. I'll compromise. Let me re-write your comments: ••I'd suggest you first review: What Wikipedia is not and see if your original entry falls in that category. There is a news section for news stories located: here. Another possible destination for you to "discussion [...] about these sort of topics" because it is "in our best interest" might be the Usenet location: here.•• See how easy that was? Aremihc 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- There were no insults in what I wrote, either, just straightforward explanations of what Wikipedia is not, and pointers to more appropriate venues if you have come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. There was nothing there to actually take offence at. That your rewrite didn't remove anything demonstrates that there was nothing to remove. Uncle G 15:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Now, see, some of that's just unneccessary. I'm an avid use of Wikipedia because it has info on nearly everything. It's not always Brittanica quality, but it's a start. I appreciate the moderators that legitimatedly want to filter and ensure quality on Wikipedia. MER-C seems to be one such. He raised a concern, I addressed it by simply saying we'd use the 5 days to see if the article was deserving of Wikipedia. No insults, no snide remarks, just a professional concern, and an earnest response. Your comment on this simply managed to offend me. Sadly, at this point I'm warring with myself over whether to get into this and essentially flush the entry down the toilet, or refrain from commenting. I'll compromise. Let me re-write your comments: ••I'd suggest you first review: What Wikipedia is not and see if your original entry falls in that category. There is a news section for news stories located: here. Another possible destination for you to "discussion [...] about these sort of topics" because it is "in our best interest" might be the Usenet location: here.•• See how easy that was? Aremihc 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is based upon what is, not what might be; and neither speculation nor idle chatter are bases for an article. If you've come to Wikipedia with the idea of reporting a breaking news story, then you've come to the wrong project. The newspaper, for news stories, is over there. This is the encyclopaedia. Events warrant encyclopaedia articles after they have been reported and subjected to fact-checked and peer-reviewed analysis. If you've come to Wikipedia in order to promote "discussion [...] about these sort of topics" because it is "in our best interest", then you've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reason. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Usenet is over there. Uncle G 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete subject does not meet WP:BIO, does not qualify as a meme, and WP:NOT a crystal ball.--Isotope23 15:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. YTMNDs or warcraft forum fads are not inherently notable, especially one as recent and minor as this. I also advise against promoting this AfD on the warcraft forums, as you did with the prod. It wont result in this article being kept. —Xezbeth 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "Only time will tell" is not a phrase that should be appearing in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Individual stories on a very long running current affairs show are not inherently notable. The remainder of the article is original thought, speculating on how Sandler's TV appearance will be received by fellow World of Warcraft players. -- IslaySolomon 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Just delete the damned thing, and whatever. Aremihc 21:59, 3 October 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.
