Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Chambers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Chaos Chambers. I carefully checked all contributors' edit histories prior to reading any part of this VfD. Both keep voters failed to satisfy my suffrage standards, so this was unanimous. I am also speedying Category:Chaos Chambers as a bad-faith attempt to duplicate an article listed for deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos Chambers and Category:Chaos Chambers

Internet cult with 50 members, huh? The "thousands of followers" claim is clearly false. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - Apparently 50 was a typo, but for a cult with "thousands of followers," Google only turns up 54 hits for "chaos chambers", most of which seem unrelated. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I got stupider just by reading that entry. Nandesuka 04:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with the flaming wrath of a thousand suns, twice over. humblefool® 04:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. IRCer vanity. Not a valid speedy, though—it's not patent nonsense if you can read it, whether it's true or not. — Gwalla | Talk 05:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems nonsensical. Punkmorten 06:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn irccruft. Friday 16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WWW site is not notable, WP article is not verifiable. Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is largely nonsense. Erekrose 23:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
From these votes downward Category:Chaos Chambers was added to the VfD because the content are the same.
  • Delete. --R.Koot 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I planned to nominate this for deletion myself several days ago. Oleg Alexandrov 23:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: Are you allowed to pile something onto a vote for deletion of a different page? If you can have category:consequentialist wikipedians, I see no reason not to have category:chaos wikipedians or something comparable. I apologize for making it an article originally but it does merit a category in philosophies, logical or not. Espantajo
Here's an even better example: Category:Cynical Wikipedians? come on... Espantajo
Officially not, but once Chaos Chambers gets deleted, Category:Chaos Chambers instantly becomes a candidate for speedy deletion, because it has exactly the same contents. --R.Koot 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the page but STRONG keep for the category. forgot to vote. Espantajo
    • This user was once listed under this category. --R.Koot 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the category. As Espantajo pointed out above, this is a more legitimate category compared to Cynical Wikipedians. While declaring one as cynical can be contested, there is definite proof when one is a member of the Chaos Chambers. I do agree that the content of the category should be changed; it should reflect the CC category itself, not merely the CC. Erekrose 23:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This user was once listed under this category. --R.Koot 23:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not encyclopedic, either as an article or a category. JDoorjam 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I figured that if I changed the category page someone would complain about me doing that after the deletion notice was put up... so i made category:Chaos Wikipedians cuz thats fair enough. delete that page too if you wans but i'm owning up to it at least. Espantajo

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.