Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolicon Edit War

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. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon Edit War

This is of interest only to Wikipedians, and it shows no reason why it would be notable enough for a regular article (i.e., why it would be interesting to a non-Wikipedian reader). Note that even "edit war" doesn't get an article on the main namespace. I say delete or move to an appropriate page in another namespace. –Sommers (Talk) 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fightindaman 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Batmanand 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. also has almost no contet at the moment. DES (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably also a violation of WP:Point, in which those involved might need a little warning. Peyna 00:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, rather bizarre. Should be dealt with at Talk:Lolicon. Ashibaka tock 00:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic Prodego talk 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator and Batmanand. jareha 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To Early To Decide Yet Given that this page was actually meant to document a current event, I do not believe that this would qualify as a violation of any of wikipedia's policies. I had thought of creating this page months ago, but I didn't think to actually create it until I wrote a request on User:Katefan0's discussion page. On a side note, my request has since been fulfilled, thus illustrating a perfect example of rational behavior in a matter of controversy. At any rate, I probably did start too early and should have waited another six months or so before reporting on it as a "historical event". Sweetfreek 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is irrelevant. Maybe it should be a sentence in the History of Wikipedia article. But it does not need a whole article to itself. Batmanand 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. ~MDD4696 04:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this should be in some project page, not in mainspace. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terence Ong's comment above Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, at least from article namespace. --Whouk (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO this raises three questions, to answer none of which am I qualified.
    1) Does Wiki want to record edit wars per se ?
    2) Does Wiki want to record its own edit wars, and is it able to sufficiently objective in doing so ?
    3) Is there actually an edit war going on regarding this topic ?
    Unless the answer to all of these is "yes", I suggest that the article, as is, has little merit. -- Simon Cursitor 11:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Easy enough. 1: no. "avoid self-reference". Therefore 2 and 3 are moot. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete we should avoid self-reference whenever possible. I am also extremely uncomfortable with the concept of letting edit wars have artcles, with the obvious exception of their requisite inclusion in arbitration evidence pages and such, because those interested in trolling could create edit wars purely to get an article, seeing it as a sort of trophy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious reasons already stated. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 14:57Z
  • Move to userspace and delete. It sure went from creation to AfD fast, though! :) Turnstep 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no content, self-referential. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete self-referential and unencyclopaedic. Move to user space. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please. StarryEyes 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just as a matter of distinction, I don't this article is doomed to be inherently self-referential—if an edit war were hypothetically notable enough to merit an article, Wikipedia would be capable of covering it as objectively as it covers itself on the page Wikipedia, for example. But this one certainly doesn't qualify (which is why I nominated it above), and in any case the article indeed looks pretty self-referential as it is. –Sommers (Talk) 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Into A New Article A page listing famous edit wars just might be the solution to this problem. Sweetfreek 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this isn't even a self-referential article, it's a stub of an one. There's nothing left to be merged to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever, and would hardly be lame enough to be included even there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't finished yet... I had to stop and save what I had in order to take out the garbage (so that my dog wouldn't get into it)... nosey little brown bastard! Sweetfreek 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if it was finished, without studying the history of this particular conflict, it'd guess it's still be either too non-lame or far too lame to be included in WP:LAME. And in my opinion, if it's outside of the range in question, it's definitely a Needless Self-Reference. Was this incident something that makes technology writers of major Internet tech news sources wax lyrical, or just another idiotic edit war? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Check the [history], dummy, I've been part of this mess for almost a year now, and I've read all the changes going back to the beginning. So just who hasn't been studying this? Sweetfreek 08:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not denying there's no material to write about. I'm just saying, do we need the posterity to remember some insignificant editorial squabble again? "The great big Wikicorporation coffee room penny jar squabble of February 2006", this time about a twenty-coin bill, oo? I've been reverting vandalism and stuff like that for a while now, and I sure won't write articles like "Vandalism of Wikipedia article on Endless Online". Nobody wants to hear how I get up at the morning, look at watch list, and revert trolling, or get bored at 3 am and revert the vandalism as it comes. People are grumbling about John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy article being retained, not to even mention crying for merge for Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) - and this was a case that got international media attention! The issue is not that you've not been studying the thing hard enough; the issue is that edit/revert wars happen here and they are pretty insignificant in the face of great cosmic scale or some other funny expression like that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:23, 4 February 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.