Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheetahmen II
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 redirect to Active Enterprises, as Liontamer's already merged the content there. east.718 at 19:35, 11/4/2007
[edit] Cheetahmen II
Prod contested by IP user. Non-notable, unreleased video game by a defunct company. Topic fails WP:N, article fails WP:V, possibly unverifiable. Chardish 11:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no secondary, verifiable sources provided. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 13:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, with no sources to indicate the possibility of notability. (Hey, that rhymed.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP CAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.124.176 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly merge with Active Enterprises article. The game's notorious in gaming circles for being one of the worst, most poorly-coded games in existence. Information is out there, and the majority of the article looks accurate. I'd rather see this given some sort of stub status and the opportunity for citations, or merged with the Active Enterprises article since this was one of their few developed properties. - Liontamer 17:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep; it indeed has fame for its incredible crappiness. See here and here and here. Spamguy 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- And none of those are reliable sources - Chardish 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting we cite these, but they should demonstrate its presence enough to justify keeping this article. If the lack of 'reliable' sources bothers you, I can point you to a few hundred (thousand?) indispensable WP articles describing things that have otherwise never appeared in forms cited here. Spamguy 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it; I'd be happy to nominate them for deletion too. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. - Chardish 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now I remember why I hated debate club in high school. Nullification of arguments rested on the opponent's failure to memorise Robert's Rules of Order instead of using counterarguments. I know that's my fate here regarding the Metawiki, so the best I can do is assert that society's knowledge isn't always available via the printed word. (Caveat: Arguments don't get me in the best of moods anyway, but before submitting this, the cat knocked a $120 external drive I bought yesterday off the table, thereby bricking it -- now I'm downright cranky. Luckily I got what I wanted to say out. Time for bed, I think. :P) Spamguy 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you ask me, it has less to do with memorizing rules than presenting Wikipedia philosophy. Most pages in the WP namespace are not policies, but rather interpretations of Wikipedia principles. There's a long and deep and complex history here, and disagreement is always welcome and encouraged to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to poor policy. Your ideas are always welcome, even if others (like myself) think that they're not consistent with Wikipedia philosophy. It does more good, though, to present your philosophies at project pages than at process pages (like this one.) Either way, the more the merrier, and I'm glad you're helping with Wikipedia : ) (Deletionists are not jerks!) - Chardish 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, it's all right. You're not a jerk, certainly. You had a great opportunity to be one responding to my pseudotroll, but wisely skipped over it. Likewise, I'm typically no jerk myself (!). As they say, 'On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog': ASCII text communication facilitates hostility, which is how we get Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars. This is why I stick to italicising text and reverting vandalism. Spamguy 04:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- PS: Since the company's been dead nigh 15 years, I don't feel terribly dirty recommending a visit to http://www.coolrom.com to acquire the game yourself. You'll want those five minutes of horrendous gameplay back, I guarantee. :)
- If you ask me, it has less to do with memorizing rules than presenting Wikipedia philosophy. Most pages in the WP namespace are not policies, but rather interpretations of Wikipedia principles. There's a long and deep and complex history here, and disagreement is always welcome and encouraged to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to poor policy. Your ideas are always welcome, even if others (like myself) think that they're not consistent with Wikipedia philosophy. It does more good, though, to present your philosophies at project pages than at process pages (like this one.) Either way, the more the merrier, and I'm glad you're helping with Wikipedia : ) (Deletionists are not jerks!) - Chardish 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now I remember why I hated debate club in high school. Nullification of arguments rested on the opponent's failure to memorise Robert's Rules of Order instead of using counterarguments. I know that's my fate here regarding the Metawiki, so the best I can do is assert that society's knowledge isn't always available via the printed word. (Caveat: Arguments don't get me in the best of moods anyway, but before submitting this, the cat knocked a $120 external drive I bought yesterday off the table, thereby bricking it -- now I'm downright cranky. Luckily I got what I wanted to say out. Time for bed, I think. :P) Spamguy 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it; I'd be happy to nominate them for deletion too. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. - Chardish 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting we cite these, but they should demonstrate its presence enough to justify keeping this article. If the lack of 'reliable' sources bothers you, I can point you to a few hundred (thousand?) indispensable WP articles describing things that have otherwise never appeared in forms cited here. Spamguy 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- And none of those are reliable sources - Chardish 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- REVOTE from Keep; Merge with Active Enterprises. Note, I've already merged the content itself. Took all of 15 minutes. Better to be bold. I think the Active Enterprises article itself is notable enough, but needs to be improved. In my opinion, it looks like a potentially surmountable problem. - Liontamer 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- MERGE with Cheetahmen. Xylthixlm 05:45, 4 November 2007 (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.
