Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Galactic Union

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. — JIP | Talk 07:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Central Galactic Union

- Insignificant personal universe, not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia 128.100.138.41 17:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mickey mouse entry. Not worthy of an encylopedia

  • Delete. When I looked at the article, it looked damn realistic, except for the absence of an author. However, when I googled it I got 115 hits. That's virtually nothing. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal universe that's involved in no published stories in any media and has no following on or offline.--Sindai 20:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research/unpublished fiction. — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons posted by Sindai. -Falcorian 04:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is obscure doesn't mean it does not exist, you know. There are many obscure scifi verse linked to on this wikipedia. Besides, this is an enclyclopedia, correct? This is info on the CGU universe that needs to be made public.

Yes, this is an encyclopedia. That means it is a repository of information that is already public knowledge. It is not an appropriate place for making previously-unknown knowledge public. See No Original Research, one of our central policies. — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

But it needs to be made public. What would I have to do to keep this page on this site, because I need this info to get to the public eyes.


Ok, here is the whole story as far as I can figure it out - at the message board Spacebattles there is a roleplaying tradition in which the original author of this article participated in. He created the "Central Galactic Union" solely for gaming purposes, and specifically for the purposes of this roleplay tradition. Note that this roleplay tradition does not extend beyond the confines of Spacebattles.com. While this entry is encyclopedic for Spacebattles.com, it's barely so even then and hardly encyclopedic for Wikipedia. I'm going to reserve judgement and leave that to the moderators and popular opinion; I just wanted to deliver the background as best as I can figure. If there are any inaccuracies or incompletions, I invite those more knowledgable than me to comment - User:24.9.10.235


I have also been informed that furthermore this universe is unoriginal and largely "borrows" from other established, published universes - User:24.9.190.235

No, that is not what happened. It is original, though we used some concepts from history and other scifis, don't all science ficitons? Anyway, we at Pyro Pictures created this story long before I join SB.com and posted it for a VS debate. It was, and remains, a story which we will make into a movie. P.S- Who keeps vandalizing the article. just because it is being debated for deletion doesn't mean it should be vandalized.

Actually, on the Spacebattles site, the writer of this was ruthlessly critisized for the universe and its inaccuracies. He didn't create it solely for gaming purposes, he created it before he registered there.

...And yes, I say Delete. No real content or meaning. Or Hapsie, host it on Geocities. It's easier than annoying us. User: MJ12 Commando


Hapsburg, it's bad enough when you annoy us but it's downright disgraceful when you're annoying the Wikipedia community. One small step you can do yourself to decrease that level of annoyance is by signing your comments. Signing your comments shows the Wikipedia community-at-large which comments are yours and is a mark of courtesy - and it's fun, fast, and easy to do! All you have to do (in the case when you don't have a Wikipedia account) is copy & paste your IP number around double-brackets thusly: [ [User:YourIPAddressInHere] ] (no spaces in between the brackets). At least this way, you would show some respect for the community here - User: 24.9.190.235


....oh, and Hapsburg, like I said, get it published, then we'll talk - User: 24.9.190.235

Delete. It's not only unpublished personal fiction but also very poorly written. --WyldStallionRyder 06:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Another spacebattler here. Delete this article. To Hapsburg: are you trying to get banned from every site you go to? This is not a suitable Wikipedia article, maybe if you posted it on Uncyclopedia it could fit more there... Maybe. There's no real content, as has been stated previously. He was criticized for spamming this CGU on Spacebattles and now, for some reason, he's brought it to wikipedia.

And yes, this CGU 'borrows' from established universes. And by borrow, I mean he plagiarizes and steals, everything from other people's art to ship designs (and names) from various TV series (in particular, Babylon 5), he was caught out on SB for art theft for one. Delete this article. User: Lord Azrael

  • Delete with an added note to my comment on the previous vote: you must not plagiarize if you hope to expand this beyond a casual roleplaying circle of friends. Durova 07:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not the place to publish new material.. Srl 10:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, how can I sign my name with a user thing when I'm not a user on wikipedia, nor do I knowm y IP number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

First, you can become a user easily. Just hit 'Login' in the top right corner of the page. You don't need to know your IP number. Find the tilde ~ key and press it four times: ~~~~, it turns into this: Srl 17:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As for the "art theft" thing, I had no clue where we got our stuff from. Weston just emailed it all to me. I've never seen Babylon 5, whatever that is. I put this stuff on wikipedia because my friends suggested that I write this stuff an make an article on wikipedia. EDIT: But, I don't want to become a user. If I do, then you government types will bann me, and then I can never look stuff up on wikipedia again. -Alex, Confederate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

I don't see the correlation between a user and being banned. One can be blocked by IP, in fact most blocks are by IP. Secondly, blocking doesn't prevent one from looking up stuff, just from editing. Srl 19:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Turnstep 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Paranoia is bad, Hapsburg. MJ12 Commando 23:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • How many times do I have to say this- my name isn't hapsburg, stop calling me that. Second of all, I know it's not good for my health, but I have my reasons.

-Alex, Confederate.


In regards to the art thing, this is why you need to verify the source of your art. Your friend Weston is being lazy, dishonest, and downright a theif. In fact, I would strongly advise verifying every bit of information regarding the CGU-verse they send you, image or print, for plagirism. If nothing else ask around and maybe someone will catch onto whether it's original or not.

In fact I recommend maybe breaking away from your little group of friends alltogether. From the sounds of things they're lazy theives who are using you for their own ends, and not too scrupulous as to how they'r pushing their "CGU-Verse" agenda, either.

And finally, you can do what I do and simply look in the "history" section of the page and look up your IP and just go back and copy & paste it in here. - User: 24.9.190.235

  • Thier agenda? Oh, no, I'm the one who initially thought of the CGUverse, weston helped me find images, as well as aiding in plot development. I don't where he got them, and I don't really care if they are stolen. I was just clarifying that I didn't find them, he did. Now, as for verifying it, I don't know how I could go about doing that, but I guess I could just redesign some of the stuff, eh.

As for the IP signing thing...thanks, but I prefer signing like so, as it more accurately portrays me, as I am not just a number, I am a person. -Alex, Confederate.


First of all you should care if they're stolen - it's called plagirism and it happens to be a statutory crime. And if you really are as serious as the depth and detail of this article being debated makes it out to be, you should care anyway for the sake of your own work and creative property. As for veryifying it, you should make at least some effort to do so - doing web searches is at least a very basic way of going about it. And finally, sign in with your IP address anyway, because as you may be finding out someone is at least going around signing it in for you anyway, and at least if you were to do it yourself you'd gain back a modicum of respect - User: 24.9.10.235

Signing makes the discussion readable, who said what. Anyways, why not make an account, 'Alex Confederate'? It seems to not be taken. Best regards, Srl 10:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yankee laws, not my laws. Anyway, I don't what the images originally were called. When weston emailed them to me, he renamed them. I can't really do a google search on the original image if I don't know what the original image was called, now can I? -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

Wrong. They are your laws. England, Australia, America, they all have the same laws regarding plagiarism. His MSN group is located in the article, and, if you browse to the images you shall find the following images, I've got what he calls them, the true name of them (in brackets) and what verse they are from. These are only the ones I recognize: Aries class Space interceptor (Aurora class Starfury) Babylon 5 Aurora class Multipurpose starfighter (thunderbolt class starfury) Babylon 5 Tigershark class (some kind of Star Wars fighter) Nova-class Battleship (nova class Dreadnaught) Babylon 5 Gawain class Starbattlecruiser (Sulaco) Aliens

Those are the ones I recognize, and there are maybe 3 that are probably created by them. Frankly, it's for your own good. If you're serious about getting this published then you should not take things from well known sci-fi series, claim them as your own and think no one will notice. That's all I am going to say about this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.22.82 (talk • contribs)

Also, to check whether the pictures are yours, google image search some of the file names EG: Gun mouth Diplomat which is on your webpage and the google image search seems to point to it belonging to some one else... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.22.82 (talk • contribs)

  • Question: what the heck is babylon 5? I've never heard of it, nor did I know that those images were from other things. Weston never mentioned anything about that, so, how was I supposed to know?

-Alex, Confederate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

I can't seem to find any reference to their MSN Group and it is a long article. I don't suppose you can just point it out for me? User: 24.9.10.235

http://groups.msn.com/PyroPicturesInc-/ that's the address, head to images and check out the ones relating to the CGU. Some of the filenames can be run through google image search to produce result. Note: Hapsburg, if you seriously believe that this 'Weston' is capable of the various forms of CGI seen in there, plus the sketching then you're a bit deluded. Also, Alex, Hapsburg, Weston, whoever you are, here is a link to Babylon 5 it's a popular sci-fi series. It would be best if you either put up a disclaimer or took the images down, they are NOT yours as you have claimed and Weston did NOT create them. Confront Weston, if that's who is doing it, and tell him that the CGU will not be successful if stuff like this continues to happen.

It is a major breach of copyright, and you can be sued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.22.82 (talk • contribs)

Ya'll yankees are always so uptight. I'll go back, and redesign some of them, okay. -Alex, Confederate.

I've checked through the MSN Group and here's what I've been able to conclude:

This[1] image I have no idea where it's from, but I'm pretty sure it's stolen given the inconsistent art quality compared to the original artwork (which all appears to be done in MS Paint).

Compare the above illustration to the CGU Mk. 50 Battletank [2]

This [3]also appears to be another unoriginal artwork although it's been (shoddily) modified in MS Paint.

This [4] is yet another example of what appears to be original artwork shoddily modified using MS Paint.

I have no idea what [5] this is but I think by now you know the story.

Since this is becomming quite a lengthy article in the interest of preserving space on this already crowded page I'll continue in the main article's talk section - User: 24.9.10.235


Oh, and while I'm at it - Alex, I hate to say it but for the most part your "original" artwork appears to be deeply lacking in quality, very much appearing with an "amatuer" finish, and still unoriginal or at least very much uninspired - User: 24.9.10.235


After further reviewing things, particularly the short article I just wrote on the main discussion page, I feel I need to throw in my as yet uncaset vote:

  • KEEP, but with conditions - Yes, that's right, I believe this article should stay on Wikipedia - but not in its current form. I believe this article, the other disputed articles, and in particular the discussion pages for all articles (not just the VFD discussions but the disucssions regarding the main pages themselves) should be kept and archived somewhere off the main site, but still accessable to the public, to serve as an example of what not to do on Wikipedia, what does not constitute an article and the issues surrounding plagirism and Wikipedia. I believe these articles, and their discussion pages, will serve as a valuable teaching aid for guidance of future article construction. I would like to hear what you guys think of this idea - User: 24.9.10.235
    • If the content is not encyclopedic it doesn't belong here. That is what the AfD here is about. Srl 00:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You miss my point - it should be archived or stashed away somewhere so that, while out of view of the general public, it can be still be seen by those wishing to create new articles to see an example of what not to do. At the very least keep the discussion pages - User: 24.9.10.235
        • Hm, then it would be moved to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Examples (say).. 24.9.10.235 - do you think that WP:NOT doesn't adequately cover this situation? (an honest question..) Srl 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If the consensus is to delete the article under discussion as original research (which the author has admitted it to be), then the article and its talk page will be deleted, and this discussion page will remain as a historical archive of the deletion discussion. Uncle G 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, to you who posted those pics from the site: If I know where they are from, I'll delete them, or at least redesign them.

As for the ones I did go back and redo: well, I'm not good at computer drawing, especially when I only have MS paint, and its somewhat limited options. On paper, I can draw fairly well, but I don't have a scanner. -Alex, Confederate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.157.93 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete — original research; non-notable about an unproven publication. If the book makes the best seller list then this type of page might make sense. — RJH 01:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to User:Srl, I guess the WP:NOT page doesn't adequetely cover this situation. So yes, that's what I'm saying.

And since the talk page is going to be deleted when this article is deleted, should I copy & paste my section about the unoriginal and stolen works here then? User: 24.9.10.235

    • 24.9 (if I can call you that)- Yes, that seems germane to the afd. Also you might want to comment on the Talk page of WP:NOT - i already started a discussion there about keeping examples of what wikipedia is not. Srl 02:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • In that case, I'm going to go ahead and post it here in its entirety, unchanged from its last edit on the discussion page (I'm just copying & pasting the code):


[edit] Suspected and Confirmed Unoriginal Artwork, Unoriginal Artwork and Original Artwork

A major point of this article in contention is the original and validity of unoriginal and original artwork used for visual support of the Central Galactic Union. The original author of this article maintains an MSN Group[6] that contains all artwork concerning the CGU. For those parties interested, here's an entire list of what I've been able to determine to be unoriginal artwork, modified unoriginal artwork and original artwork:

NOTE that the reason why I am doing this is so that, hopefully, the originators of these artworks may be able to step up and lay rightful claim to them, and to further answer the question as to the validity of the artwork in question and validate any original artwork suspected to be unoriginal, and to clear up questions regarding the true origin of any unoriginal artwork. I do this NOT to slander the originator of this Wikipedia article in question, or Pyro Pictures Inc.

[edit] Unoriginal Artwork (Suspected and Confirmed, with source listed where applicable)
  • [7](suspected)
  • [8](suspected)
  • [9](suspected)
  • [10](all suspected)
  • [11](suspected)
  • [12](suspected)
  • [13](suspected)
  • [14](suspected)
  • [15](suspected)
  • [16](suspected)
  • [17](suspected)
  • [18](suspected)
  • [19](suspected)
  • [20](suspected)
  • [21](suspected)
  • [22](suspected)'
  • [23](suspected)
  • [24](suspected)
  • [25](suspected)
  • [26](suspected)
  • [27](suspected)
  • [28](suspected to be Star Wars Return of the Jedi concept art)
  • [29](suspected)
  • [30](suspected)
  • [31](believed to be Star Wars prequel concept art)
  • [32](believed to be either Star Trek or video game concept art)
  • [33](suspected)
  • [34](believed to be Star Wars prequel concept art)
  • [35](suspected)
  • [36](suspected)
  • [37](suspected)
  • [38](suspected)
  • [39](suspected)
  • [40](suspected)
  • [41](although itself original artwork, this may be a design infringement of the Hammerhead fighter from the short-lived sci-fi series Space: Above & Beyond)

NOTE: Compare the artwork quality of the above with that of the below:

[edit] Suspected & Confirmed Modified Unoriginal Artwork
  • [42](gun handle modified in MS Paint; inconsistent with rest of the artwork)
  • [43](may have been edited in MS Paint or photoshopped)
[edit] Believed to be Original Artwork

[44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]

Note the difference in quality compared to the previous examples of artwork; for example they all appear to be done with MS Paint

Once again, I do not mean to slander, just clear up a few pressing issues - User: 24.9.10.235


      • also in the interest of fairness I'm posting Alex's response:


Okay, you know, you don't have to post EVERY PICTURE on the site. That's a bit unneccesary, don't ya think? Now, if you told me where each thing is from, then I'll delete it, except for the Zaaroft stuff, because that is the closest to what we were thinking of. Oh, and these ones:

We did do, using a program, HeroMaker 2.0, from ugo.com. Also, why are you talking about stuff that does not involve the CGU story at all?... -Alex, Confederate. - User: 24.9.10.235

I believe this one is from this series called Space 2000 or something. I've seen the style, I just can't place it.

This one is from the same series, given the similar coloration and art style.

This, I believe, is SW concept art.

This too.

This again.

This is familar to me, but I can't place it.

In other news, none of these are original works. Alex, you don't want to plagarize unless you do want to get smacked down.

MJ12 Commando 09:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • What the hell am I supposed to do, then? Those are the things that resemble most closely what we wanted the Zaaroft ships to look like. Also, not everything on there is 'stolen', as you call it. Weston knows some people who are artists, and some of those things on there are from that guy, such as the Shocktroop and Heavy Shocktroop pics.

-Alex, Confederate.

  • No offence, but Weston has no credibility. Just because you found something that looks like what you envisioned doesn't mean you can just take it. It'd be like me coming along, taking all your CGU stuff, renaming it and claiming it was mine because it was on my website, don't you see a problem with that at all? And doubt Weston knows any artists, atleast ones who can draw and CGI as professionaly as shown in the above pictures.

That looks like a Hydran warship from Star Trek to me, the game Starfleet Command. It has the same blue hull, purple glowing narcelles and same T kind of shape.

User:Lord Azrael


No, I've met the person he was talking about. And, I didn't say the guy drew the CGI stuff, I said the "Shocktroop pic and the Heavy Shocktroop pic". Now, if I could draw something like that CGI thing, I would, and do something somewhat different, but I don't know how to draw CGI 3D stuff, nor do I have a program to do so on. All I have is MS Paint. -Alex, Confederate.

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.