Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi (6th nomination)

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 speedy keep. I see meat puppetry has taken place, but this is a bad-faith nomination, and also the articles sixth nomination. I'll enforce the GNAA clause.. – Will (E@) T 20:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LUEshi

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

The epitome of useless forum cruft. Delete, per usual. -I LIKE SIMPLE PLAN 19:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Naconkantari, while pointing out edits, forgot to mention that this nomination is the SECOND EDIT by this user. Silensor 04:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Every other major internet fad has it's own article, why is there an idiotic bias against this one?

User: Anonymous 09:36, 18 May 2006

  • Delete on the basis that there are no outside reliable sources to reference in the building of this article and Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Hiding Talk 19:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I saw this posted somewhere, wondered what on earth it was, and found that information here. Seems like reason enough to keep it to me. Lateralus1587 01:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not going to list my reasons again. The past FIVE failed deletion votes speak for themselves. Give up. 164.107.197.49 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)
  • Keep - There is no reason to delete it. People wonder what it is, come here to find it, and find the information they need. Let it be. 71.248.179.81 03:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)71.248.179.81 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. There is no reason at all to delete LUEshi. It's a very entertaining thing to read about, and its presence on the website does not hurt a thing. (Dr. Casey) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Casey (talk • contribs) .
  • User's second edit Naconkantari 04:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---KEEP It's not like Lueshi doesn't exist, it most definately deserves it's article, and furthermore it will never die. Lueshi will always return to haunt those who disbelieve. [crackrocksteady —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.249.137 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep - It's informative and accurate, so why delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.106.124.183 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - This is important info right here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.237.241.33 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per Hiding. Naconkantari 03:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - LUEshi is the mascot and represents everything "LUE." Mexicore 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • User's third edit Naconkantari 04:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's informative. 150.134.67.50 03:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All this is is a ASCII art praised by one of the many internet communities. A community that is not even well known. It serves no purpose here and any information here is nothnig that can't be learned by asking when it's mentioned on a forum.~~~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.6.161.2 (talk • contribs) .
  • User's first edit 164.107.197.49 04:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)
  • Keep for reasons already established in the 5 previous RFAs. Silensor 04:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hiding. —Khoikhoi 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for the upteenth time... does the GNAA auto-close clause come after 6 nominations give it a keep? Otherwise this is going to be nominated repeatedly until it gets the delete decision.  ALKIVAR™ 04:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to concerns about verification, although we'd managed to settle this down to a reaonable level of containment. While we're here, though, anytime someone says "like the last X times" we should slap them with a trout. If you do anything other than examine the merits of the page in question, you are doing yourelf and the encyclopedia a serious diservice. GNAA is an excellent example of something that should be deleted but that people have allowed themselves to be led down the garden path to keeping.
    brenneman{L} 05:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please try to assume good faith. I've reviewed the article and believe the content to be more than suitable enough for a project which aims to be the sum of all human knowledge. Why exactly should the GNAA article, in your opinion, be deleted? Silensor 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Doesn't this project rather aim to be "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language", to quote Jimbo, rather than the sum of all human knowledge? If it was to be the sum of all human knowledge then personal blogs would be allowable as entries, covering, as they do, aspects of human knowledge. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia summarises primary and secondary sources. There are no secondary sources on this subject. Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't get to be contradicted by a consensus in an afd. Hiding Talk 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It depends on which day of the week you ask Jimbo, he said both. My take on it is "knowledge" does not mean "information." Kotepho 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just make a new policy and allow Aaron and his faction to delete whatever they want? We could save the effort of endlessly voting keep for articles that this encyclopaedia should plainly contain. Grace Note 05:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't we just be civil here. It's a contentious issue and we're probably all being trolled, let's not make it a main feature. Hiding Talk 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't you think it's just as annoying to say "delete" a bunch of times? My point is not that you shouldn't say "keep" six times, just that saying "keep because we've done this six times" doesn't address the actual issue. If something is of a certain quality, looking at it a bunch of times won't change that. Deletion debates should be about the actual article not about the process. Saying "delete because I'm sick of this" would be equally bad. For myself, I think that repeated nominations are harmful, and that this venue isn't the way to discuss what to do with contentious articles. But when it's here, I'll speak my heart about what I think should be done. - brenneman{L} 06:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: There seems to be strong evidence that this nomination for deletion stemmed from a group of trolls on the Ebaumsworld forums. Thus, I am changing my vote to Speedy Keep. 164.107.197.49 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)
  • SPEEDY DELETE -- THE SIMPLE PLAN is right, so get rid of this now and for all eternity!!
  • User's first edit 164.107.197.49 06:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)

DELETE (DO NOT KEEP) this article it is pure crap and everyone knowwws it --Warrrio

  • User's first edit 164.107.197.49 06:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (RockMFR)
  • Keep, 6th nomination, that says it all. bbx 10:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Outside of GameFAQs itself, how much attention has LUEshi gotten? I need to know that in order to vote...I'd like to vote keep, but I won't if this is just something popular on the forums of one website. It needs to have at least a little more currency than that. Everyking 13:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ug, not this again. Last time I voted for merge and redirect based on questionable notability, but I don't particulary have a problem with this article. If so many people want this article kept I see no problem with voting Keep this time. VegaDark 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, 6th AfD most recent one was less than 2 months ago and closed a consensus keep. Keeps less than 6 months old should be closed speedy keep, and I hope people will come and support me at WP:SK to help introduce this change and stop wasting everyone's time with AfDs like this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There are a few questions to answer. Is this notable? I can say I have seen it on multiple internet forums, but it has never taken on a life of its own on them. Thus, it is merely the work of some LUEser(s) that need LARTing. It is notable in the context of LUE, but not otherwise. In the previous AFDs people have compared it to other memes, so I will try to address them. O RLY has an article from a college newspaper and I remember seeing another article recently. It also was (or still is) a staple on many forums, be it 4chan, fark, slashdot, etc. Others compare it with the OS-tans. While I do not know of any sources for the phenomena, it spans many boards (in different counties and languages thanks to the kawaii! sugoi! people) along with a decent number of people cosplaying as them. I would say that it is certainly more notable, but without sources it should be deleted. People also mentioned the list of memes in 4chan. It has since been removed (several times) from the article and I think List of YTMND fads should also be deleted. Now to the topic at hand. We have an article on a subject of questionable notability with no sources. The answer is obvious, throw it out. Kotepho 20:33, 18 May 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.