Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renegade1116

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 speedy delete per authors trying to move it out of article space and revealing they knew the article was not appropriate long ago "I realized the article was wrong as defined by Wikipedia a long time ago. I just wanted to see if I could possibly get around it in some way."[1].--Andeh 18:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renegade1116

Holding my nose and submitting to AFD instead of speedy deleting (again); we need a definitive ruling on this gaming character. NawlinWiki 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete (holding my nose also). Gaming clans, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Individual gamers, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Their aliases or avatars, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Fan-1967
  • Speedy delete I originally marked this for speedy deletion. How is this individual, who is not-notable to begin with, become any more notable with this gaming character? After reviewing this article, I believe this also violates WP:VANITY Wildthing61476 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • He's more than just a personal avatar of a random user. He is an icon for an entire gaming generation...his name :"Renegade" sort of explains part of it. Alot of people I know know of him. Not just people I know personally, people from akll over the world. A girl in Norway, a man in Finland, tons of people in America, a chinese kid, a woman in Bangladesh...the list goes on. I have been doing some research and I actually got to talk and meet with him. He was a very interesting person who lead a troubled life. Renegade1116 is an underground icon. he isn't something that you'd find in a magazine or in print. Like an urban legend. He isn't as famous as a movie star, but people know of him. A surprisingly large amount of people. I figured it might do him a little justice to put something up about him on wikipedia. I think you guys are making a way bigger deal of this than really exists. You have multiple articles way worse than this that you let survive. I want this Renegade1116 to be recognized somewhere else than hearsay. Isn't this WIkipedia's spirit anyways? It's freedom of information. The whole point of this article is to bring something to light. It IS to MAKE it more widely known and notable. SOmething can't be notable if it has no beginnings...therefore this article was created to turn hearsay, rumors, gossip, and facts into a definitive explanation. Renegade1116 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia is most definitely not for making things notable, only documenting people or things which already are notable. Fan-1967 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Fan-1967 beat me to it, if he is already not notable, then the article does not belong here. There is hearsy, rumors and gossip about me I'm sure, does that mean I need my own page here? Wildthing61476 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; "Results 1 - 10 of about 15 for Renegade1116" csd A7. None existant attention from websites/media. Thinking this user is at all notable is absolutely absurd.--Andeh 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment he is NOT notable online. That's the entire point of this. Think of movie stars for a second, ignoring the comparison. They had their start somewhere else. They got inducted into wikipedia after they had done notable things OUTSIDE of it. They didn't appear on wikipedia all noteable online already. Someone must have seen their acting/movies and decided they belonged online in wikipedia. This is exactly what this is. Usernames have nothing to do with it. Results of "searches" don't matter. That's the whole point I am trying to create this...so there will be more informaation available. And anyways, why do you guys seem so harsh? Is one article wasting wikipedia's space so significatnly? Renegade1116 is noteable outside of online places. THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE ARTICLE!
    • You're mistaken. We don't create articles here until people are already notable elsewhere online. As for why we're so harsh, how many thousands of gamers would start adding themselves here if we let this one stay? Fan-1967 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Fine, if he truly is notable offline, give reliable sources that can back this up. As for movie stars online, they become notable because of independent, verifiable sources that can show a claim to notability. And YES they appeared as notable already before getting an article on Wikipedia, otherwise the article would be removed using this SAME CRITERIA. Wildthing61476 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentYour telling me if I find any other site where this character is "noteable", then that's good enough for you? Why do you think I am creating this? Is it not apparent...he isn't noteable online...he is noteable in the real world. Isn't that WHY people get added? And also..."thousands" of gamers would start adding themselves? Haven't thousands of people just added themselves or had others add them for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 16:53:43
  • Comment "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test " And why are you forcing this if it is I quote "contentious" and "not a policy of Wikipedia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 16:57:48
    • Comment' Those "thousands of people" that have their articles created end up being deleted using the same criteria as well. If he is so notable in the world as you state, show WHERE this is make. Just because you say he is notable, doesn't mean he is. If he is known in multiple countries and in the real world, there HAS to be a way of proving this rather that saying "he is because I said so". Wildthing61476 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • COmment Another notability quote straight from wikipedia: “People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted” The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 17:01:28
    • There are some who disagree, but a minority. On the other hand, Verifiability from Reliable Sources are ironclad rules. (Oh, and just as a note, most people don't regard Runescape as "the real world.") -- Fan-1967 17:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. I'm a gamer, too. Where's my article? —Wrathchild (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Another Wikipedia quote from the "ironclad" rules: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This basically states if Time Magazine, 15 "renowned" internet sites, and at least 3 other people all say that Hitler wore Mickey Mouse underpants then I am entitled to make a wiki about it? That is a load of steaming, crap.
    • That's why we're so careful about WP:Reliable Sources. Time magazine wouldn't say that. Some blog or forum might, so we don't consider them reliable. Fan-1967 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Another wikipedia quote: "3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)
  • ...and you've provided none. Fan-1967 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • COmment I'd also like to point out that Time Magazine has printed numerous untrue things/butchered statements and quotes to their own benefit. Even Time Magazine is biased in ways..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)
  • The sources section of the article cites individal close friends of the subject. This article is original research — i.e. Renegade1116 (talk · contribs) has gone and interviewed the subject and the subject's friends directly, and then composed a new, never-before-published, biography of the subject. In other words: Xe has considered that in xyr opinion human knowledge has a gap and has created this article to fill it, to publish new knowledge. To quote xem above: "The whole point of this article is to bring something to light. It IS to MAKE it more widely known and notable. SOmething can't be notable if it has no beginnings...therefore this article was created to turn hearsay, rumors, gossip, and facts into a definitive explanation." In other words: The purpose of this article is to be primary source documentation for someone who has heretofore been undocumented.

    Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The place for this original biography is a book, or the author's own web site. Delete. Uncle G 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • COmment Correction. It is a primary source...but an online primary source. SO that doesn't make it "the" primary source. There are other sources offline...in books, poems, stories and etc. Eyewitness accounts...
  • Comment No it is not, and again as we have said time and time again, unless you have verifiable, reliable soruces to back this up. This is nothing more than hearsay. Wildthing61476 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • comment What about all the Urban Legends on Wikipedia? These are all hearsay and people "document" them on other sites. People make books out of this hearsay and you call this reputable and allow it to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment People make books out of this hearsay EXACTLY, making this "hearsay" notable. Have any books been written about him, any articles in say a LOCAL paper? ANYTHING at all, or is this to ONLY place where anything has been written about him? Wildthing61476 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable,. That someone can become famous for an online pursuit, but his handle can only be found 15 times by Google, is preposterous. It's like expecting an incredibly well-known researcher to go completely uncited on Pubmed. Look at it this way: nobody on the internet is talking about him, so I doubt anybody's going to come and read an encyclopedia entry on the internet about him. Sockatume 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. Google gives over 9 million hits for runescape. You'd think a famous runescape player would have more than 15. Fan-1967 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as "an article about a person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". Wikipedia is not: a directory, an advertising service, a webhost, a publisher of original thought. It is, however, an encyclopedia, a concept that Renegade1116 should probably familiarise himself with. -- IslaySolomon 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • COmment Solution...anyone have a link on "userfication"?
Comment. "Userfication is usually performed because material is added in article space that is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but not objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof. This can be a satisfactory result for new users unfamiliar with the boundaries of Wikipedia content, and for users who inadvertently create personal templates in the main template space."Sockatume 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment This material does not look appropriate for a user page. -- Fan-1967 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and Protect - per SD comments above. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Antyone want to help me with "userfication"? Or are you all just going to sit there and quote stuff?
  • 'Comment You were hellbent on keeping the article, you never mentioned userifciation until now. I'm adding the userfy tag to the page as we speak. Wildthing61476 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Comment Strike that, I'm not sure what happened to the page, an admin can adjust this for you though. Wildthing61476 17:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope I haven't just screwed things up too badly...thank you for your help -.- and also, no matter really how "important" the article is or was...it was nice that we actually got a chance to discuss it. I am hoping I will learn from this to avoid future mistakes. I realized the article was wrong as defined by Wikipedia a long time ago. I just wanted to see if I could possibly get around it in some way. I guess userfication is the only way to do that. I hope you'll all forget me that way I can start posting decent, wiki-rule following wikis in the future. Thank you all for putting up with me, and thanks for at least discussing it instead of automatically deleting it. I love wikipedia and I apologize for any inconvenience(s) I might have caused. Thanks again guys =)
  • Comment You're welcome, and good luck to you! Wildthing61476 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Mission accomplished. Hopefully an admin will be able to sort out that fairly convoluted set of redirects you've got on your userspace right now: the page-meddling capacity of the Move function is not to be taken lightly. Sockatume 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment APologies for the redirects...I kind of misread the userfication page 4 times in a row. Not pretty.
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.