Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] June 3
- 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 G7 by Royboycrashfan 
02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] David Geister
The article creator has abandoned the article and removed all information. Jelligraze 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per {{db-author}} or {{db-blanked}}. As both editors user:24.192.151.57 and User:DMGeister have blanked or requested deletion.--blue520 02:36, 3 June 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.
- 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 - ignoring all the obvious sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry from all these people voting SAVE with incorrect terminology, also arguments to SAVE are not up to scratch either.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MGTOW
- Comment - Regarding the unjustified deletion of MGTOW - There are plenty of obscure and esoteric topics on Wiki that are not even worth mentioning, but because said topics are politically benign they are allowed to remain. Please at least do us all the favor of coming up with a better lie than "copyright infringement" since the self designated Wiki censors are in the business of trying to smoke screen and diverting public attention. I will assume said suppressors of this entry feel a sense of threat of the implications MGTOW, otherwise this topic would not be constantly removed. One thing is for certain, with or without a Wiki entry, MGTOW is going to make the dam burst despite opposition. The clock ticks...
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Delete I read this article[Men Going Their Own Way]. It's interesting... Yanksox 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN, wiki isin't a soapbox Ydam 12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, no notability claim. -- ReyBrujo 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE, Noteworty as it has over 2000 active members, and is an important movement being diametrically opposed to feminism. Also, there are over 100 entries in sub-divisions of feminsim. MGTOW is a very significant subset of Masculinism, and thus should remain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.28.200.250 (talk • contribs) .
- SAVE, Noteworthy for reason claimed above, though this article should be seen as a compnent of the Marriage strike or antifeminism, and will also need editing.Laboratory mike
- Note This is the above user's first edit. Yanksox 04:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE Google turns up over 9,000 hits for this term, and many are relevant to the article given. I've always found Wikipedia to be a great source of information, and this article is no exception.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.126.26 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete per nom. Also it is un-cited(WP:CITE), with major WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. DVD+ R/W 05:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The exact same reasons can be cited for the deletion of over 100 articles dealing with subsets of feminism. If you are really upset and offended by this, DVD+ R/W, then at the very least you should propose that the article be merged with Masculinism
- Note Yanksox's observation is correct for my presence on Wikipedia. However, I personally have been involved in the Men's Movement for 2 years, and have made contributions at www.standyourground.com/forum and www.laboratorymike.com/patriarchy, among other places, and can vouch for the significance of MGTOW as a subset of the Marr iage strike or antifeminism. Editing is a better alternative to deletion. Also, I humbly request an interpretation of DVD+ R/W's words, as I am unfamiliar with Wiki terminologyLaboratory mike 01:05, 4 June 2006 (EST)
- SAVE ""wiki isin't a soapbox "". Then why does PETA have a listing, or the NRA. What about Leather subculture, donkey punch , George W. Bush , Pro-life / Pro-choice or a million other examples? Neutrality is a different matter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Osmod (talk • contribs) .
- Comment Those Organisations have entries because they are notable. They have suffcient coverage outeith wikipedia to warrent inclusion. Ydam 10:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is safe to say that donkey punch and Leather subculture are realatively unknown outside wikipedia.
- CommentI think I would be hard pushed to find anyone outside of wikipedia who wasn't aware of the leather fetish and the kind of things associated with it. As for Donkey punch I'm sure there are plenty of people who are familar with it who don't use wikipedia. Ydam 14:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You must know some pretty far out people, Ydam. I do not think rabbit punching some poor girl during anal sex is a well known practice.
- CommentI do not think it is a mainstream practice either but that does not mean people have not heard of it and are familar of what it entails, you mearly have to check the cultural references section of that article to see what I mean. Ydam 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A quick informal poll of over 100 marines sitting around here at the barracks, and none of them have heard of your "donkey punch". They are a pretty raunchy group, so it is safe to say that this is a VERY obscure practice. By the way, please stop editing my comments. If you would like to add something, add it UNDER YOUR OWN HEADER.
- Comment Please be civil during this debate. Also, donkey punch is not the issue of this debate, let's get back to the topic at hand. Yanksox 16:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT Nothing in the above comment denotes inciviltiy.
- SAVE I view this article as a significant piece of pioneering effort for the growing men's rights movement. As such it represents a historical document which stands as a counterpoint to documents such as the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto MRA1 05:28 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- (injected comment) The only edit by this user, MRA, was the above vote. Kevin_b_er 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE This article was a great help to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhythmic01 (talk • contribs) 06:00, June 4, 2006 (UTC)
- (injected comment) The only edits by this user, Rhythmic01, are edits to the page, and one to the sandbox. Kevin_b_er 05:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and DVD+ R/W. Someone might want to check all the people voting "SAVE" to see if they're sockpuppets, given that several of them have only participated in this discussion. (Not to mention that they all use very similar language.) – Zawersh 06:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE There are many other movements of similar size with Wikipedia entries. The perspective needs to be made neutral, though, with 'we' and 'our' replaced by 'they' and 'their', etc. This should be an article about that movement, not a manifesto written by its members. Heian-794 07:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE This is a new and fast growing movement and is a valid reaction against feminism, socialism and globalism. therefore, in the name of freedom of speech, it should be kept as it is.Ragnar 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE The MGTOW movement is against sexism and anti-male hatred. It promotes a equal society for all, without privileges based on gender. It has the right to exist and spread awareness about these problematic, ignored issues. Artanisen 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG SAVE There is no good reason to delete this article. The subject of MGTOW is susbstantial enough to justify saving this article. NiceguyC 14:25, 4 June 2006 (GMT)
- SAVE The article is significant. --M.R.A. 13:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Guinnog 14:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom; not cited, not neutral, etc. If this page were worth keeping, it'd look more like straight pride, as far as controversial beliefs go. --Merovingian {T C @} 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Commment Again, the same reasons can be given for deletion of many articles here, including many controversial subjects. Just because you find a particular topic personally offensive, does not mean it is worthy of deletion.
- Comment: It's not that I find it offensive, it's just completely unworthy of being a good article. This is just one group, which has yet to prove its importance or notability. --Merovingian {T C @} 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You need to read the deletion policy. Nothing about the article fits the reasons given within as cause for deletion.
- Comment: No, the article's subject is non-notable. The only links provided are blogs, which do nothing for credibility. --Merovingian {T C @} 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just to be clear, there are websites on the net about MGTOW. The fact they where not included in the article means that an edit is required so that it is on-par with the rest of Wikipeida's articles, not deletion. For instance the following is a link about the movement http://menforjustice.net/cms/ which should have been included in the article. --Thorsson 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: No, the article's subject is non-notable. The only links provided are blogs, which do nothing for credibility. --Merovingian {T C @} 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You need to read the deletion policy. Nothing about the article fits the reasons given within as cause for deletion.
- Comment: It's not that I find it offensive, it's just completely unworthy of being a good article. This is just one group, which has yet to prove its importance or notability. --Merovingian {T C @} 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As I said, you need to go back and READ the deletion policy and notability before you clamor for something to be deleted! From the article:
It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research.
- SAVE Edit rather than Deletion. The articles subject is part of the masculine, anti-feminist movement so I would consider it notable. Neutrality is a matter that can easily be rectified by an edit. As for citations there are websites out there about the movement, as I noted above, and an edit would once again rectify that problem. --Thorsson 16:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- (injected comment) This user account was created the date of the above signature and the only contributions are to this AfD. Kevin_b_er 05:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am very concerned by the ballot stuffing going on here. With all the "Saves," and recent users. Should this be spilt among recent users and otherwise? Yanksox 16:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment What Yanksox means is that he can absolutely not tolerate anyone who differs from his own extremely narrow view. He believes everyone who disagrees with him should be shut off onto an obscure and practically unviewable section of this topic.
- COmment No, what I mean is that alot of people who normally wouldn't be on Wikipedia are suddenly here and the first thing they do is defend this article. Yanksox 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It seems that you cannot handle the fact that there are large numbers of people who agree with this article and would like to see it saved. Furthermore, it seems that you CANNOT STAND the fact that wikipedia is democratic in nature when you find it challenges your narrow world view.
- No personal attacks, please. This isn't a debate over whether Yanksox's opinions are right or wrong. --Merovingian {T C @} 17:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment' Democracy suggest a vote, which this isn't. It's a debate, we can discuss about the issue. Also, please don't make personal attacks, it's not very civil. Yanksox 17:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Tell me, in what manner that is a personal attack? It is obvious that Yanksox is challenging the democratic nature of wikipedia, in which everyone is free to edit.
- Eveyone is free to edit, however this is the maintance space of an article. There have been other debates in which discuss got so out of hand, that the discussion was spilt. Yanksox 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Saying that he has a narrow, undemocratic worldview is offensive and detrimental to this debate. --Merovingian {T C @} 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- That is fine, it is not up to you to decide when to censor everyone because you do not agree with what they have to say. And anyway, if this is not a vote, Yanksox, then why use the term "ballot stuffing"?? If it is a debate, then you should have no problem with letting everyone's voice be heard, in the intrest of fairness.
- Your voice has already been heard. The term "ballot stuffing" refers to having multiple users come and sound off about an article, without having a credible amount of past experience on Wikipedia. --Merovingian {T C @} 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not matter how much of a wikipedia "expert" you think you are Mero, the fact is you are missing the charter goal of egalitarian nature of wikipedia. It is open to all to use and enjoy.
- Comment It seems that you cannot handle the fact that there are large numbers of people who agree with this article and would like to see it saved. Furthermore, it seems that you CANNOT STAND the fact that wikipedia is democratic in nature when you find it challenges your narrow world view.
- COmment No, what I mean is that alot of people who normally wouldn't be on Wikipedia are suddenly here and the first thing they do is defend this article. Yanksox 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What Yanksox means is that he can absolutely not tolerate anyone who differs from his own extremely narrow view. He believes everyone who disagrees with him should be shut off onto an obscure and practically unviewable section of this topic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Mero's an "expert" since he's an admin. Yanksox 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment I use the term ballot stuffing since all of these users clearly lack an understanding of AfD and believe that dropping in a "Save" vote will alter everything. I am only suggesting this for the help of the closing editor. With all these new users a very incohernet message is being devolped. Yanksox 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Yes, apparently that "incoherrent" message is that the vast majority of the public wikipedia users see this article as having substantial merit.
- First, you are not a majority of Wikipedia users by any means. Second, most of the people who have asked that the article to be kept have had little or no interest in the Wikipedia community until they learned that this article was up for deletion. --Merovingian {T C @} 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Commment All you have to do is take a quick glance at this page to see that the majoity of users agree with me that this page should stay, Mero.
- Comment Yes, apparently that "incoherrent" message is that the vast majority of the public wikipedia users see this article as having substantial merit.
-
-
Save this article. Just because the pro-deletion faction doesn't think it belongs, does not mean it's not a credible movement. 147.222.167.5 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC) MachPoint2One
Comment: The fact is that MGTOW is one small group. Just because you have a few blogs and whatnot does not make you famous. Oh, and tell arbitrarycode that I am not a "mangina / transsexual wannabe". --Merovingian {T C @} 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please, Merovingian, no more personal attacks. Please!
- Uh, hello? I'm the one being attacked here. --Merovingian {T C @} 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where? I do not see any personal attack here. If you are talking about offsite material, remember that is irrelevant for the discussion here.
- Really, this is supposed to be a civilized discussion that involves no pointing of the finger. It started in your talk page.[9] and it's spreading here. We just need to have a civilized conversation, and Mero is doing that. 71.29.178.4, you are bringing statements to the table that have no content to them. Also, it's time to stop this attempt at playing mind games, it's not amusing in the least. Yanksox 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am having a civilized conversation. There are no insults or rude comments on my user talk page. I cannot help that Mero goes out to the internet at large and is offended by some website. I have not insulted him or used any profanity here whatsoever. As for me bringing statments to the table that have no merit. So, despite the OVERWHELMING support of this article, you are so stubborn that you refuse to consider that it is worthy.
- Please, Merovingian, no more personal attacks. Please!
- Comment on Google Search Results to Rebut 206.255.126.26's Google Cite Above Searching for the phrase "men going their own way" yields 487 hits. [10]. MGTOW also stands for "Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight," which is used in aviation, thus the popularity of the acronym. Running a search on "MGTOW" while omitting pages containing aviation terms that usually accompany the MGTOW acronym yields 620 hits. [11] — WCityMike (T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but I'll post it for the record, read the last post[12]. Yanksox 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sure many are unfortunately aware of this, and the recent behavior here is proof of it. [13]
- Comment
This debate is a clear example of the wonders and pitfalls inherent to modern communication. Claims of ballet stuffing, on the surface, appear valid. Indeed, as defined in Wiki policies and guidelines, that is exactly what is happening.
The problem is simply this. How can any organization, born of digital communications prove its existence outside of a traditional media outlet? What options are there, other than a ‘head count’, and the understandable allegations of ballet stuffing that comes with it?
I put forward a simple question, what would it take, in the eyes of editors and admin, to validate the existence of MGTOW(as it seems to be the issue). And what sort of time frame is available to do so? As the answers to these questions would raise others, I politely invite a response ( osmod@hotmail.com) .Thank you. Osmod 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- What would it take? Maybe some links to your site from other sites not affiliated with you. Maybe some media coverage. Maybe a book. Articles about Internet-based communities like yours are deleted all the time. If they can be written about fairly, they have a much better chance of survival. --Merovingian {T C @} 19:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Delete, per nom and Merovingian's research. Re. your questions, Osmod, I believe that any sort of independent, non-related mention is in order here, and in reasonable quantity as to establish notability enough to warrant the existence of this article. Side note: attacking users and posting his picture at the site in question is definetely out of place. I strongly urge the person(s) responsible for this webpage to remove it immediately, please. Thank you. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and severe sanctions to abusive editors. Wikipedia is too tolerant of disruptive users who contribute nothing positive. -- FRCP11 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we shouldn't go that far. Most of the new registered users voting to keep the article will never be heard from again once it's truly gone for good. --Merovingian {T C @} 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not talking about the various violations of WP:CIVIL, though those are bad enough. I'm talking about the systematic vandalizing of every page edited by the nominating editor in retaliation. It's one thing to give a warning to a clumsy user who accidentally used a page as a sandbox, it's another to merely warn a vandal who's done nothing but vote once here and then blank several legitimate pages. -- FRCP11 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- And severe sanctions, eh? If we can start levying those in AfD, things'll get a lot more fun. Let's not go overboard on the hyperbole. — WCityMike (T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Severe sanctions huh? LOL!! OH NO! Internet tough guy FRCP11 is going to get me!!!. As for Phaedriel, well, you can come to that website and discuss with US why you think that picture should be slated for deletion, and we will consider all worthy arguments.
- Very cute. And please stop referring to me as a girl on your forums. --Merovingian {T C @} 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Warning, gentlemen... it may be amusing for you to organize a "Take-over-the-Wiki" movement at your forum, but it is completely unacceptable to blatantly insult people and ridicule them. Regardless of this debate, I encourage you to keep this conversation within the limits of respect and good taste. I also insist that personal pictures of Wikipedia editors are "not" meant to be posted anywhere but on Wiki itself, unless you are given proper permission - it's a simple question of good faith. And just FYI, I am "not" a "feminazi", as you have so graphically and kindly called me. Regards, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- You released your photo into the public domain. Therefore, anyone can do as he pleases with it.
- That's a bit like the First Amendment though. One simply shouldn't be able to do whatever one likes with it. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm not talking about copyright issues, but appealing to your good faith. It certainly won't help anybody to have Mero's pic or mine with a deprecating statement close to it at your forum, don't you think? So pretty please, can you remove them, and let us focus on the debate at hand? Thank you very much, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's a bit like the First Amendment though. One simply shouldn't be able to do whatever one likes with it. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- You released your photo into the public domain. Therefore, anyone can do as he pleases with it.
- Warning, gentlemen... it may be amusing for you to organize a "Take-over-the-Wiki" movement at your forum, but it is completely unacceptable to blatantly insult people and ridicule them. Regardless of this debate, I encourage you to keep this conversation within the limits of respect and good taste. I also insist that personal pictures of Wikipedia editors are "not" meant to be posted anywhere but on Wiki itself, unless you are given proper permission - it's a simple question of good faith. And just FYI, I am "not" a "feminazi", as you have so graphically and kindly called me. Regards, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Very cute. And please stop referring to me as a girl on your forums. --Merovingian {T C @} 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Severe sanctions huh? LOL!! OH NO! Internet tough guy FRCP11 is going to get me!!!. As for Phaedriel, well, you can come to that website and discuss with US why you think that picture should be slated for deletion, and we will consider all worthy arguments.
-
Funny you want to bring up what members of Niceguys forums are saying when you get together and say things such as calling us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phaedriel]Pathetic MGTOW morons Nice hypocrisy. Don't complain what is being down on a seperate forum and website when you are doing the same name calling. Another thing. I like how you call the whole forum and its members "MGTOW Morons" as if that forum is the only place where MGTOW is talked about, Discussed and followed as if its Just little ol' us. We are just the ones here at the moment. Shall we go spread it around to the rest of the sites and blog spheres and bring more people here? You see, Mgtow has already been at multiple anti-feminist websites and forums for the past year. ALl you need to do is take a look. Its been at Cooltools4men,Stand your ground, Mens news daily. mens-rights and a whole host of anti-feminism blogs out in the blogsphere and even has a comprehensive site at http://menforjustice.net/cms/>Men for justice There is a book already far along being created at this very moment. It wouldn't be hard at all to edit in that "Notability" You say the article needs. All we'd need to do is go out and spread out the word and no doubt we could get those external links up. There would be the book out for sale. The language used could be changed to make it sound less preachy and "Soapbox" like. This could be done very easy yet you all would rather refuse to have it happen. Because you know we could make it meet the notability requierments. I don't see why this can not be done. As it would stop the need for such a debate and bashing one another. How?, Because then it would show that you really are just Following your own rules or that this really is just admins that want to silence dissenting opinions that differ from thier own.Rhythmic01 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh ya. Just to drive my points home. Maybe some links to your site from other sites not affiliated with you. Easy. As I said before. Niceguys forum isn't the only anti-feminist site out there.
Maybe some media coverage. There is no need for traditional mainstream media coverage by the very way the movement is setup. Give it a read. Or better yet. You should have already seen this on our forum since you are spying on us. Allow me to quote what I said on our forums. Something that you should already have read no? I have seen multiple blogs that in spirit, Go by the basics of MGTOW they don't actually come out and say this or are vocal about calling and/or identifing themselves as such.
Thats the thing with a movement set up in the way we have it. There are many men who have thier own sites and blogs that are indeed. About them going thier own way. Its a hella broad movement that, Because of the way we for the most part are doing all of this in a more individualistic and a somewhat non-cooperated way.
- That only works against you though. You are part of a broader movement, which does deserve its place on Wikipedia, but this is a single faction we're talking about. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a book. Being done as we speak.
Articles about Internet-based communities like yours are deleted all the time. Except as I said before. This isn't based on our forum community like you seem to wish it to be. It isn't a mantra made by and only for our forum. You are incorrect in that idea.
- As I've stated above, you haven't been able to provide links from fair sources. And you're really just contradicting me. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If they can be written about fairly, they have a much better chance of survival. As said. That can be done. Indeed it has been offered already.Rhythmic01 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- When I said morons, I was talking about the people posting our pictures and insulting us. Nothing more, nothing less. --Merovingian {T C @
} 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- (editconflict)*Comment Let me just ask you a simple question, and there's nothing vicious behind it, I'm just curious and you don't have to answer it: What is the appeal of having an article on MGTOW on Wikipedia? I'm just asking and wondering what the answer is. Yanksox 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment
Yanksox, That is a fairly complex question.
The first and foremost reason is the countless subtypes of feminism listed on wiki. If there is room for 101 types of feminism (exact numbers unimportant), then there should be room for a men’s philosophy, all be it a minor one.
Pardon my humor here, but I can only laugh when we were told to find independent supporting web sites as a minimum. The problem with that is this. Either you don’t care about what MGTOW is, or you have a political view on it. And sites that agree with MGTOW wouldn’t count for independent support. The issue is very polarized. Given that the MGTOW community has failed in creating bonds/friends in the feminist community ( can’t at all see why ), it makes it close to impossible to display a ‘independent’ source online.
Secondly, being listed, or more correctly, not de-listed, is a validation and a general step forward for the philosophy as a whole. A self-serving reason, granted. But human beings have been known to be somewhat self-centered. Osmod 23:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've stated above, you haven't been able to provide links from fair sources I put down the names of a few sites. Go ahead and take it from there. I refuse to sit down for the next 4 hours saving, linking and cataloging multiple anti-feminist sites and blogs so you can outright deem them as not being fair sources and delete anyway. From my point of view you already made up your mind. Now if we are givin the chance to edit out the page and make it so it can stay without it being deleted outright. I wouldn't be against doing the work. But it has already sounded like you have already made up your mind. First by saying Well, we shouldn't go that far. Most of the new registered users voting to keep the article will never be heard from again once it's truly gone for good You've already made up your mind. You claimed I haven't named any sites when I already did name a few. Meaning either you didn't bothering reading my post in full or you did and just skimed past it because you don't care. Thus no matter what sites I put up that show that its more than just the niceguy forum community you will still say. Its just one forum delete anyway because you personally want to see it deleted. I have seen nothing that shows an open mind. I gave you enough to jump start yourself. If you don't want to then nothing will convice you otherwise and typing here is a waste of time. Good day.Rhythmic01 22:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- What's most ridiculous is that I sympathise with some points of your core values, but I think many of the forumites have gone about it in a most uncouth manner. And by "sites" I don't simply mean websites which link to yours. I'm talking about true media attention and actual debate of subject matter, not just agreement. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You refused to notice my mention mens news daily? Angry Harry? Why not say what you mean 100 percent. "actual media attention" you mean just mainstream traditional media outlets. Nothing is allowed on Wikipedia unless its mentioned on cnn? What if I told you there was a book that is already out for amazon.com that served as the basis of MGTOW and damn near every basic and tenet of MGTOW thoughout all of his life expeirences. If anything, There would be no MGTOW if it wasn't for this book. Even more to the point. His current revision actually has an entry to a site that list the core idea of MGTOW. Try buying it. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0976261308/harrysnews-20/102-6020085-2006524
- Does this book specifically mention MGTOW? If so, where? --Merovingian {T C @} 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
His current revision actually has an entry to a site that list the core idea of MGTOW Part of the latest version of the book makes changes to the second to last chapter. Page numbers from my own outdated book are 254-255 listing Anti-feminist pro-male sites he[the author] visits. depending on if pages were added or taken out it should be in or around there.My own copy is an older one thus I can't give you an exact reference or exact statement.Feel free to buy his current version. Changes should include updated urls to referrals to anti-feminist sites and adding in some more one of which is about MGTOW. Him, Being active around the anti-feminist scene has said this to us[us as in anti-feminist...]. You would have the answer to this and indeed it should have been fairly easy to find this book for yourself if you actually poked around. Funny, You ask a question that was answered just 2 lines above yours. Even better I just type a paragraph restating what was said in one line. You know what. That is enough. I won't bother putting anything else here as you have shown this is a waste of time when you can't even be bother to read something that is. Go ahead and delete the entry.That last statement has shown your closemindedness to any sort of infomation we provide where it has to be repeated over and over againRhythmic01 23:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said. You've been givin enough. You just refuse to see it. You could be given much much more. But its a waste of time as you do not have an open mind. but I think many of the forumites have gone about it in a most uncouth manner. Which is why you probably don't have one. You got offended and you are being closed minded out of spite. Read you loud and clear.Rhythmic01 23:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Rhytmic, could you please calm down? Take a deep breath? K? Ok, let's get to the issue here, and stay as focused and concise as possible. I see you've taken our pictures off your forum; that's a good start, and I commend it, seriously. Regarding the article, it's not whether or not we want it deleted due to ideological matters. I think none of us (not even me, being female) have taken a position based in our sympathy to your cause or not. Most of us tend to think as Wikipedians; that means, there are a few basic rules any article must comply in order to deserve space here. For further information, there are several guidelines I would suggest you to read thoroughly, like What Wikipedia is not and Verifiability. What we're trying to determine is:
- Is the object of this article notable, as in, widely known and recognized outside certain particular forums and blogs?
- Can this notability be endorsed with independent sources of any kind?
- Can these sources be listed and, if possible, doublechecked?
We're open to discussion here; and rest assured that we are perfectly able to weight in a positive and objective manner every element you bring to our attention. You mention that you're not willing to "spend four hours saving, linking and cataloging multiple anti-feminist sites and blogs..." Did you know that writing a good article takes way longer than that? Trust me, all the effort you're willing to put in this article will only be for better, as it may assure its permanence here... that, if you're interested in going through that effort. A second positive step would be to rewrite it in an objective and neutral way. Take all the time you need; nobody's rushing you, and this debate will stay open for, at least, a few days. Just make sure that you're working with our guidelines here, not yours; it is you who wants to post here, not us at your forum.
We've had tons of articles that, prima facie, were unworthy of being included at Wikipedia, only to find out later and after further work from some editors interested in the subjects they covered that they were perfectly suitable here. Nobody's saying that cannot be the case with your article as well; on the contrary, I encourage you and other members of your forum to take the endeavor of making this a great article, one that we'll be happy to show around. And if you do, I swear right here that I'll be the first to congratulate you... even despite the fact that I'm a woman. Regards, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable forum does not meet WP:WEB requirements. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE MGTOW is a highly notable, original branch of Masculism. There are over 100 articles on branches of feminism, most of them non-notable.
- Comment: Most of the text of the article also seems to be unoriginal, as I've found it on other blogs. Would this be considered a copyvio? --Merovingian {T C @} 01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Take a closer look. You might catch the notice.
The MGTOW logos and the MGTOW Manifesto are public domaim, explicitly designated so by their creators (the men of MGTOW) to be used by anyone for the purpose of promoting MGTOW. Understandable. You are in such a rush to get rid of it.Rhythmic01 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you guys insist that this article should stay, try to follow some basic guidelines. Assert notability outside the forum and rewrite the text to meet the criteria. In its present form, the article has to be deleted because of copyright problems. And stop trolling around, making a mess on Phaedriel's userpage will only get you blocked. --Tone 08:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop deleting peoples post. Thanks.
-
- I have a serious question: What would you do if someone used a lengthy list of elite proxies to automatically evade your edit bans, and constantly made edits that you guys didn't like faster than you could delete them? Thanks.
- We have a number of administrators who permanently block open proxies. --Merovingian {T C @} 20:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the question. If the perl script reroutes throught a fresh proxy upon being blocked, how would you stop that person from evading your blocks(given that the vandal has a long enough list of fresh ones)? Thanks.
- We have a number of administrators who permanently block open proxies. --Merovingian {T C @} 20:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have a serious question: What would you do if someone used a lengthy list of elite proxies to automatically evade your edit bans, and constantly made edits that you guys didn't like faster than you could delete them? Thanks.
- Delete per WP:SOAP and the clear lack of notability. As for the rest, life must be boring in Kentucky. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- You still have failed to answer my question. I am just curious. You don't have to take such a deffensive tone because you are threatened by the notion of a "vandalbot". Oh, and you are wrong, Angus, that is a proxy I am using in KY. I don't even live in the U.S. Sorry. Also, you need to pick up a book on logic. You posit that life must be boring because I am making these casual comments on wikipedia. Applying the same logic, life must be REALLY boring where you live as you are a wikipedia EDITOR.
- Please stop flamebaiting. Whatever you're prattling on about has no impact on the discussion of this article's worthiness. --Merovingian {T C @} 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am not "flamebaiting". I just asked a simple question, and I got savagely attacked by Angus. I would still like to get an answer to the question. I really am curious. What would be done in such an event? Was this what the "wikipedia is communism" vandal used? Thanks.
- Please stop flamebaiting. Whatever you're prattling on about has no impact on the discussion of this article's worthiness. --Merovingian {T C @} 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- You still have failed to answer my question. I am just curious. You don't have to take such a deffensive tone because you are threatened by the notion of a "vandalbot". Oh, and you are wrong, Angus, that is a proxy I am using in KY. I don't even live in the U.S. Sorry. Also, you need to pick up a book on logic. You posit that life must be boring because I am making these casual comments on wikipedia. Applying the same logic, life must be REALLY boring where you live as you are a wikipedia EDITOR.
- Delete as WP:NN. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE non-notable. Google results are partially flawed due to term confusion. There's a couple of mentions on the first page, but it drops off instantly on the 2nd. Nice message, but not notable. Flamewars just make things worse. Who knows? Maybe one day this could be a major movement by men. Nothing prevents a non-notable thing from becoming notable one day and then having an article on wikipedia. As a side note, big arguements about articles that may sway one or the other tends to attract more community members who usually preceed to enforce the sway. Kevin_b_er 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I found an answer to my question (the SQUIDWARD vandal used this method, and you were powerless to stop him). Also, I have read Wikipedia.info and now understand the true nature of Wikipedia. Look, if you guys just act in an uncontrolled childish fashion, you are going to inspire more true vandalism like SQUIDWARD. Then, you will just have to lock down editing ability. So, the trend will continue untill Wikipedia is totally locked down except by editorial staff, and at that point it will have lost all of its advantage to traditional media. I understand now why nobody in academia takes wikipedia seriously.
-
- SAVE Highly notable subset of Masculism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.69.227 (talk • contribs)
- Delete not notable.--MONGO 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, and if it weren't that, it would be NN --rogerd 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You have articles on some of the most extremist bigots in the feminist movement like Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin, yet we are getting deleted because we are a "partisan polemic". Whatever. When wiki can no longer get enough fundraising to keep itself online or someone vandalizes it all to h**l Ill be watching the fireworks00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)~~
http://menforjustice.net/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=4 The MGTOW logos and the MGTOW Manifesto are public domaim, explicitly designated so by their creators (the men of MGTOW) to be used by anyone for the purpose of promoting MGTOW.Right at the bottom of the page Funny you missed it, I understand you are in such a rush to make sure this doesn't see the light of day anyway you can you didn't bother reserching at all. Rhythmic01 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per rogerd. NoSeptember 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- SAVE The way that the "copyvio" was abused as an excuse to remove this article by someone who vehemently disagrees with it proves that this push to delete this highly worthy article is nothing more than a small group who finds the MGTOW movement personally offensive.
- Comment We're not a small group by any means, also we don't find it offensive, we just find it not to be note worthy. Why focus so much on a Wikipedia article when you can promote yourself through other means? Yanksox 21:06, 8 June 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.
- 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Loob
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Non notable web forum. Has 130 members. See Talk:Loob. Delete. gadfium 05:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable Ande B. 06:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 130 members is non-notable. Kalani [talk] 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- This article is a group of people with no assertion of notability. I've tagged it with {{db-club}}. --Rory096 06:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Other online forums have their own pages on Wikipedia Hauser 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB particularly the bit The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. - a 3 month old small forum does not get over the line - Peripitus 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If we had an article for every forum with 100 members wikipedia would be flooded with them.--Andeh 11:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- merge into Craccum. --Midnighttonight 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- this should *not* be merged with Craccum; Loob is almost entirely separate from Craccum, and is in no way officially sanctioned by the magazine, AUSA or the University of Auckland. --Hugh 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Very well, then it should be deleted entirely. --Rory096 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- This forum is well known through the University Of Auckland and is home to many of the contributors of Craccum. Loob has also facilitated a few notorious web pranks that are worth a mension (e.g The Myspace one that got notice on SA & printed in Craccum). Stevee2 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - I live in NZ and have never heard of this web forum - plus it could hardly be classed as an historic forum since its only been around (in its existing persona) since february.. r2b2 04:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neither - Please read Defence against Speedy Deletion on the discussion page of the article before commenting. The relevant history is the article was listed for speedy deletion after one scentence had been written - at which point the author, (me) stopped writing it. (It has since been breifly expanded by other hands). The present afD listing is an attempt to retrospectively correct the original error of listing the article for speedy deletion but is flawed as the article remains unwritten - there is no point in puting effort into something which may not last 5 days. To delete the article at this point is to judge the article in an embryonic state and reward the intial breach of Wikipedia policy. Winstonwolfe 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody needs to judge it by its current state to realize it should be deleted. It's an internet forum with 130 members! --Rory096 03:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - All that has to be done to avoid deletion is to assert notability. It doesn't have to be an article full of sparkling prose. In all the comments left here, on my talk page, and on the article's talk page, I have yet to see one real assertion of notability. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note that that's all that has to be done to avoid speedy deletion, not regular deletion. --Rory096 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Re Comment - Well at least there was a 7 minute delay before that reply :-). There are assertions of notability on the discussion page, and above, and who knows, there may even be one in the article. On the afD process c.f. speedy deletion, there is a discretion to delete the article if there is no notability, not just assertions of notability. But the question is whether that discretion should be exercised, despite the lack of due process shown in listing the article for deletion. Either way, I think we may set an interesting precedent.Winstonwolfe 02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - as I noted in my revision of the entry, the site has close links with Craccum despite its very small size in terms of membership. Were it not for the fact that the site isn't officially linked to Craccum, I'd support it being merged into Craccum as Midnighttonight has suggested, but I think it merits continued existence. Samf-nz 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just because it's not linked to Craccum doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article. --Rory096 04:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious delete. I would support speedy as {{db-club}} per Rory: although it's very marginal as a speedy candidate, I still don't see an assertion of notibility. bikeable (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether the tagging process was correct of not (and it appears to me it was), it doesn't change the fact the article does not meet WP:WEB. Rockpocket 05:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Small web forum, I see no evidence that this is notable. -- SCZenz 08:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete speaking as the original author, I give up - while I find it worrying that the majority don't see the due process issue here, this is just not worth the fuss it's generating. Winstonwolfe 05:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, got to keep things in perspective Stevee2 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- In terms of the procedural issue (discussed further on the article's talk page); Wikipedia does not prescribe to natural justice, and often deletions are supported for reasons other than (or despite) the ones initially given. Ziggurat 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (weak). If I didn't take into account the guidelines I'd say it's just on the keep side of notability - it's fairly well known around campus. Maybe. And that just campus, to say nothing of anyone else in the entire world. And when I take into account that the established guidelines are pretty clearly against it... --Dom 12:27, 8 June 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.
- 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 delete all. --MONGO 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Pentagon, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Flight 93, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers
Unnecessary POV forking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Rory096 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- What does a physical analysis of the pentagon crash site, and a comparison with the physical dimensions of a 757, have to do with anti-semitism?rich 12:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP the Flight 93 one, at least -- there are definitely historical facts that need recording (such as allegations of significant discrepancies about time of crash)
131.111.48.158 15:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC) djcmackay
- Delete with extreme prejudice. Deltabeignet 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete - a lot of it looks like a copy/paste. If the main article becomes so large that it needs to be split up, ok, fine, but just copying/pasting a section into a new article and changing a few things doesn't really help. BigDT 06:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)- Sure it does - that's how it works. You copy/paste a section into a new article, then put "Main Article: XXX" where the old section was and drastically condense what was there. --Hyperbole 08:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as fork. Rather interesting that the next article listed is about Kooks. Capitalistroadster 06:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- lmfao! --Rory096 07:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all - these aren't POV forks at all; they're forks for the purpose of splitting up an overlong article. That's standard Wikipedia practice. 9/11 conspiracy theories was becoming utterly bloated and unruly, and this is the logical solution. Sort of how like Jesus forks into Chronology of Jesus, New Testament view on Jesus' life, Genealogy of Jesus, and about 20 other pages - too much information for one page. --Hyperbole 08:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - ok - if that's the case, that's fine, but a user who has no other contributions created all of the new articles, copied the content, and blanked the sections he copied, replacing them with links to the new articles. Rory096 immediately reverted his blanking. There is no discussion on the talk page about the split. If that's really the intent, ok, fine, but there's no evidence of any attempt to gain a consensus or at least let everyone know what was going on. BigDT 08:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Forked or not, they're unencyclopedic nonsense. I suppose I should mirror the whole Enterprise Mission site here as NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Face on Mars, NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Cities on Mars, NASA Conspiracy Theories - The Alien Bases on the Moon, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This page is only going to keep coming back and getting re-created. The content conforms to Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, by being based upon multiple written external sources. The main 9/11 conspiracy page is now an accepted part of the WIKIPEDIA, and at over 100kb, was FAR TOO LONG. A concensus was arrived at that the main page was too long, and the creation of sub pages is in accordance with the ALREADY ESTABLISHED CONCENSUS ON THIS MATTER. Above comments are clearly in error, and seem to border on the hysterical. Timharwoodx 08:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - can you provide a diff on the discussion page where splitting was discussed? Obviously, it needs to be done ... so you're probably right and this is moot anyway BigDT 09:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_7#Proposal for new sub-articles seems to be the most relevant. There's similar discussions throughout the archives, though, for various other splitting schemes. – Zawersh 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a ringing endorsement ... but whatever ... at most it's a content dispute ... no real point to argue about it here Speedy keep BigDT 09:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the opposite of an endorsement. Not a single person supported the split in that particular discussion. I'm confused... since nobody supported the split there, and few supported similar splits elsewhere (that I saw, anyway), why is that your justification for a speedy keep? The original article isn't up for deletion, just the split offs. – Zawersh 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a ringing endorsement ... but whatever ... at most it's a content dispute ... no real point to argue about it here Speedy keep BigDT 09:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_7#Proposal for new sub-articles seems to be the most relevant. There's similar discussions throughout the archives, though, for various other splitting schemes. – Zawersh 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - can you provide a diff on the discussion page where splitting was discussed? Obviously, it needs to be done ... so you're probably right and this is moot anyway BigDT 09:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Skimming through the talk archives, there appears to be no consensus for splitting. My impression was that more people wanted the article to be editted down to a smaller size. If it's to be split, it should be with consensus. – Zawersh 09:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#This_page_needs_to_be_split. We now have a page. Timharwoodx 09:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Restore to original article. If the page is becoming unruly, tidy it up. Don't just be information agglomerators, be real editors, and EDIT. -- GWO
- Exactly. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 09:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - No, it needs the headings splitting off into sub pages. Thats all this is about. An overly long page, that needs subdivision. 98 kilobytes is an absurd size, and vastly exceeds the Wikipedia:Article_size guidelines, which give 20-32 kilobytes as the range to begin to consider subdivision. So logically, following the WIKI rules, AT LEAST 3 sub pages are required, and possibly 5. I don't understand why there has to be so much discussion about something, that is just the application of standing WIKI style guidelines. If this was any other topic than 9/11, it would have been done MONTHS ago. Timharwoodx 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the same thing could be said about this afd. Don't just be deleters, be real editors and EDIT. -- MisterHand 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the main 9/11 conspiracy theories is insanely long and out of control. I'm not sure why so many people think that's a good thing. -- MisterHand 10:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete until decisions have been made on which sections stay or go in the original article. SkeenaR 10:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is for verifiable facts, not 100's of opinions and theories.--Andeh 11:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a soapox. Systemic bias, conspiracycruft is greatly out of proportion to its importance. This kind of stuff just hurts Wikipedia. Weregerbil 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Much of this material is only supported by citation to primary sources - the conspiracist websites themselves. There is not at this time enough secondary source material to support independent articles. There is barely enough to support one main article; the reason it's so long is every theorist with a website wants his link and a promotional paragraph. There was certainly no consensus on the talk page to do this. Tom Harrison Talk 12:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, but Keep 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers /
Controlled demolition conspiracy theories, as it is a much needed daughter article to make 9/11 conspiracy theories conform to Wikipedia:Summary style.--DCAnderson 14:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)- Comment. Controlled demolition conspiracy theories was as bad a title as 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - World Trade Centers. A better title would be 9/11 Conspiracy Theories/controlled demolition. For the moment I have moved it back to its original title and also merged in 9/11 conspiracy theories WTC - a repost of the article. -- RHaworth 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Who decided to split the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? ILovePlankton 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Weregerbil and Tom Harrison. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If the articles are not written from a neutral point of view, or contain unverifiable statements, these need to be edited into conformance. But there is nothing wrong with reporting in a neutral voice on verifiably existing conspiracy theories. Some of the arguments given for deletion apply equally to the featured article Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --LambiamTalk 17:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Hyperbole, Timharwoodx, BigDT, and MisterHand. —204.42.21.174 17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Don't need more than one article on the subject.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if this isn't prejudiced, then I certainly don't know what is. --Bill (who is cool!) 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if there is consensus on the original article's talk page for splitting, OK. Just doing it is a bit too bold, IMHO. Lundse 00:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Completely unnecessary splitting, a dumping ground for amateurish tinfoil-hat blog links. Raggaga 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, PLEASE! What, pray tell, is the purpose of this article? The second paragraph says, "These statements are contradicted by the preponderance of eye-witness testimony at the scene reporting an aircraft fitting the description of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the side of the building." Then one can sum up the whole article thus: "Even though everyone who was there says otherwise, a few people on the Internet who weren't actually there think this happened..." Casting legitimacy on this is like casting legitimacy on Paul McCartney actually being dead. As Weregerbil notes, this sort of content only hurts Wikipedia. (On a personal note, not to be thought of as part of my voting rationale, a member of my immediate family was in Washington that day and saw the plane hit the Pentagon with her own eyes. Make of that what you will.) StarryEyes 00:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: The main conspiracies article is far too long. These sub-articles pack just the right punch. You can read one then, when you've stopped laughing twenty minutes later, read another. What the main article needs is for a bunch of guys to take matters into their own hands and trim it. --die Baumfabrik 02:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. As stated above "Forked or not, they're unencyclopedic nonsense." Brimba 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete all -- disgusting bit of anti-Semitism. Violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Morton devonshire 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)- Keep This vote isn't whether the 9/11 conspiracy theories page itself should exist; it's not being voted on for an AfD here. The subpages were created as a result of forking a large page into separate subpages when it gets too large; this is a standard Wikipedia practice. Based on that, it's not really a question at significant issue. — WCityMike (T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per WCityMike. The 9/11 conspiracy theories page is becoming very long. --Zoz (t) 20:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. These articles are used to serve the purpose of cutting down the length of the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Also if you look at the main page, nearly all of the comments are supported and verifiable according to wikipedia guidelines.MBob 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: all theories are verifiably presented by notable individuals. Wikipedia is not the place to judge whether the theories are reasonable or not. Calwatch 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all Forks due to main article length. - CNichols 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think a good start at problems with article length would be adherence to Wikipedia policies, notably reliable sources. A lot of the articles are regurgitations of self-appointed "researchers'" blogs and other self-published sources. While I appreciate the stupidity displayed in those blog entries to demonstrate the weakness of the conspiracy theorists' arguments the articles are unencyclopedic messes. Splitting them up so we can pile more junk on top of junk isn't helpful. Weregerbil 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete conspiracy cruft. Grue 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a POV fork, but a spinoff article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP These articles have just as much of a right to be here as any. These are not POV, they are debated facts. You cannot keep articles such as Elvis sightings, Kennedy assassination theories, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, Illuminati, and Majestic 12 and delete these simply because they are very controversial. Keep them. Andy Filth 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all and edit the main 9/11 conspiracies article more concisely MLA 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted these blatent POV fork articles as they violate numerous arguments on discussion pages and they were all created by a sockpuppet of someone...once I figure out who I suspect, I'll take the evidence to RCU.--MONGO 13:25, 7 June 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.
- 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 delete. Royboycrashfan 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Resolutionist Party
I don't think this meets the requirements for notability. It is a real party but it has only one or two members and has fought only one election when it came bottom of the poll with only 0.5% of the vote (see Manchester Gorton (UK Parliament constituency). David | Talk 13:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Gleng 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - Eegads its even written in the first person. Speedy for db-bio (group). Wickethewok 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: and avoid surgery in Manchester. --die Baumfabrik 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Wickthewok. Tagged. Grandmasterka 04:49, 4 June 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.
- 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. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bush family conspiracy theory
Do not delete--highly relevant links and informations!
After all the original research has been cleared out, all that is left is a single paragraph and a huge list of external links. DCAnderson 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete AntiBushcruft SM247 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete pointless —Mets501talk 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Totally pointless conspiracycruft that hardly even explains itself. Grandmasterka 05:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- violates WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, plus conspiracycruft, cause I like that word. Morton devonshire 07:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If we delete this, will the author(s) think we're part of the consiracy? ~ trialsanderrors 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- DON'T DELETE ANYTHING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.160.146 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom; too few secondary sources to be viable. Tom Harrison Talk 18:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- It would be nice to have an actual article/explanation above all those links... I wouldn't say "delete", though. It's worthy of discussion, yes?
- Delete Nothing in it worth keeping at this stage. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC) - Cleanup The fact is that there are numerous Bush family conspiracy theories - which is the focus of the page. Remove the abundant links and start over. To delete it is to disallow the reality that there are theories which belong on the page, when they can be appropriately cited. Wikipedia is not censored. S-P 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This is the user's 2nd edit, first being creating their userpage.
- Delete I respect the devotion put into collecting those links (must have spent hours bookmarking and stuff...), but it's all the aforementioned cruft and more. --0zymandias 01:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: It's just a collection of links which Wikipedia is NOT. Scoutersig 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I too respect the time that went into the creation of this, but feel it just doesn't belong here. GassyGuy 07:33, 9 June 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.
![[56]](http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h267/hollywoodhotness/TinasCutepics039.jpg){kind=link}