Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.fan.warlord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP(K=9 votes, D=3 votes, 1 neutral). Mgm|(talk) 20:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alt.fan.warlord

Newsgroup vanity. --fvw* 15:30, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

  • Delete Cdc 16:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup this newsgroup is certainly notable (it is mentioned in Jargon File for example). Grue 20:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Warlording was the AYBABTU of the early '90s. iMeowbot~Mw 21:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - this was a Usenet phenomenon of some note back in the early/mid 1990s and as such might be written about encyclopedically, but the current article is very weak on information or context. Keep if someone bothers to make significant improvement, otherwise deleting would be no loss. -- Infrogmation 21:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thoroughly uninteresting and unencyclopedic. -R. fiend 23:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy enough as a Usenet phenomenon. Shimeru 23:14, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thoroughly interesting and encyclopedic. GRider\talk 23:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand. Has some potential. But if no one bothers, delete. Pufferfish101 0:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and expand, historical Usenet phenomenon. Megan1967 02:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Expanded. Shimeru 09:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not an expert with alt.fan.warlord, but I am familiar with "warlording" and .sig problems. This is an interesting Usernet history article, and is certainly notable enough to warrant an inclusion. Oh, and some forum signatures I've seen would do well to heed this article.
  • Keep and expand. Notable, but could still benefit from some more info, especially some sources or external links beyond the group itself. – Beginning 19:57, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable historical Usenet phenomenon. Gamaliel 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: maybe a Wiktionary entry lurking in here, but nothing particularly encyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Careful, Jmabel. I've recently witnessed biased VfD admins gaming the vote count by counting "weak" votes as half votes in order to delete an article. Please bare this in mind. GRider\talk 19:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Since Jmabel voted delete, cutting that vote in half would boost the count for the keep tally. But don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory! Gamaliel 19:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Very funny, but this is not a conspiracy theory, it happened last week in fact. [1] If he really feels this should be deleted then he should submit a regular vote of delete, less it be counted as a "half vote". You misread my intent. GRider\talk 20:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.