Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Hyperstrike

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Team Hyperstrike

Delete nn forum/clancruft. A group of people recording video games. TheMidnighters 20:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A Google search of "Team Hyperstrike" returns 0 results and the forum only has 14 registered users. --TheMidnighters 22:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Do not delete, this is a producton studio, and the article details the history and workings of said studio. It does not endorse a clan, a forum, nor does it contain bias shedding a fair nor poor light on the studio. It only gives descriptions of members, movies, and projects that the studio puts forth. ---This wiki is about a studio just formed within the past two weeks, so therefore, predetermining that this is an unreasonable entry when the studio and its users (myself included) are relatively new in scheme and new to Wiki, is an unfair judgement. The two users defending its relevance are both users to Wiki who registered today to create an article about our studio. The forum has 14 users, but the users have grown in size recently. In just three days, the forum grew to its present size. Going into the future, a reference guide to the history of our studio would be helpful to new members. While it is sure that a giant number of users wont access this information, niether will many people reference what the national bird of Andorra is either. This article clearly does not endorse, advertise, or promote the studio, it is an article doing exactly what an encyclopedic article should, explains an organization with a NPOV and in an informative way. And the remark about a certain 'xCRAZ3SN1P3Rx' is irrelevant, that has no bearing on this article's delete status. Coldradio 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned vote and blanking of VFD page by Coldradio. Fixed by FCYTravis)

User's only edits are at Team Hyperstrike and here. --TheMidnighters 22:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Do not delete because this is unbiased and is only a documentation of a movie studio. SkiBumRacer6

User has 3 edits, all of them here. --TheMidnighters 22:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Team Hyperstrike does have xCRAZ3SAN1P3Rx as a member. NN Master-Chiefcruft. Delete. JDoorjam 22:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. / Alarm 22:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --PhilipO 23:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

(An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. ) Coldradio 17:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep- this entry doesnt present any negative for Wiki, it doesnt show that wiki is accepting clan information, it isnt a misuse, it just provides information on a group of people making movies in a virgin and underused medium. Tiburon78 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User has two edits, both here. --Etacar11 05:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Martg76 03:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

(An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.)clarification by Coldradio 17:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• You guys... lol. Points for effort and a dizzlete vote for vanity. FCYTravis 18:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

(An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional) Coldradio 01:27, 20 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.