Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top gun mach 2
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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Top gun mach 2
This is the recreation of a previously speedily deleted article. This is a supposed "mythical Canadian band of great status." The "sources" do nothing to indicate meeting WP:N (one is a simply a mirror}. Fails . . . well, this fails everything. janejellyroll 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete and Salt G4 (repost), with a nice little side note that the page directly criticizes Wikipedia for deleting things per policy. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- they shouldnt b chastized for pointing out the events in the past. dennis u r a loser
- Please be civil, and don't resort to name calling, as it doesn't change what I've said. Please also see this link for verifiability, this link for notability, and this link for fictitious creations.
- ...erm, yeah, I said that. Forgot to sign. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please be civil, and don't resort to name calling, as it doesn't change what I've said. Please also see this link for verifiability, this link for notability, and this link for fictitious creations.
- the sites are not mirrors at all, jane if u actually clicked the link u'd know that --Clayzer 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThis "source" [1]? janejellyroll 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThat reputable source is not a mirror, the facts are that it is simply running the same software as Wikipedia. GunnerMike89 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The fact remains that you can't use the article as a source for . . . the article. That sort of circular cannibalistic "sourcing" doesn't prove anything about your "mythical Canadian band." janejellyroll 03:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - formatting change for User:Clayzer's commentary was done for readability. --Dennisthe2 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as apparent hoax and unverifiable in any event. Zero relevant Google hits [2] for a "myth of great status" that has a "has a long and historic history" does not jibe. References cited are completely unreliable. I have removed the speedy deletion tag. G4 repost criteria is only for articles deleted after debate at an xfd, not for articles previously speedied.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I somehow got over 500,000 related hits when I searched Google. [3] Just 2 minutes of following links and I found those 2 references.GunnerMike89 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- You know, Google is kinda funny that way. --Dennisthe2 06:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes indeed you did. That is because you searched without quotes and therefore got hits for every page in which those 4 words appear in any order. Or put another way, I just searched for rock 4 flag umbrella and got over a million results.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. Order is actually part of Google's algorithm for finding and sorting search results --GunnerMike89 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Did I say differently? Your citation of 500,000 results, as if that means something relevant to this subject, was what was referred to and my point stands. The number is irrelevant and a search for those exact words returns no relevant hits. The fact that the ordering algorithm sorts results to the top, and none of the links in the first few pages are to this fictitious thing also proves the point, though there is no reason to search in this untargeted manner unless you wish to cite a large number that doesn't tell you anything about how often the actual thing searched for appears online.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you did say differently. You stated that without quotes you get hits for "every page in which those 4 words appear in any order". This is not true. The order of those words creates different results, not only a different sorting order.[4][5] Of course, since no common phrases can be created by rearranging the words rock, 4, flag, and umbrella, there will not be a great difference in search results. If you rearranged the words in a phrase such as these two searches[6][7] you will notice a drastic difference in results, an increase in hits of approximately 296%. GunnerMike89 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to remind you both that we are not here to discuss how to search on Google, nor are we here to discuss the results of different combinations. GunnerMike89, the point that Fuhgettaboutit was making was that searching for the terms sans quotes will indeed look for pages with any or all of the search terms in it, ergo your massive result. Search for the term "Top gun mach 2" without quotes results in thousands of results; putting it in quotes results in precisely four, and putting a more refined search (+"Top gun mach 2" +Ontario +band) results in precisely zero. --Dennisthe2 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your "refined" search method is fatally flawed, and negates your argument. For example, this reasonable search would "prove" that the Holocaust did not occur. I'm sure you
wereweren't implying that the atrocities of the Holocaust did not happen, but I think Google, while an excellent search tool, should not be used to prove or disprove the accuracy of an article. --GunnerMike89 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)- You know, it figures that sooner or later, Godwin's Law would rear its head here. Put a fork in it, the argument is done. --Dennisthe2 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I would like to point out that the band's name, according to the article itself, is actually "TopGun: Mach 2" and searching Google for this results in a blocked user's page, and the administrator's noticeboard. Bwahaha! Salad Days 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Another failed argument attempt. The Nazis were not mentioned, nor was an attempt at comparison made. Remember how Iran made news recently when it held that Holocaust convention, where they evaluated the likeliness of the Holocaust occurring? The organizers were largely Islamic fundamentalists, right wing maybe but certainly not Nazis. Therefore I reject your attempted use of Godwin's Law, please come up with a valid response. -- GunnerMike89 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can say whatever you want. I stand by what I have said, and have nothing more to say to you. My !vote stands. --Dennisthe2 22:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Another failed argument attempt. The Nazis were not mentioned, nor was an attempt at comparison made. Remember how Iran made news recently when it held that Holocaust convention, where they evaluated the likeliness of the Holocaust occurring? The organizers were largely Islamic fundamentalists, right wing maybe but certainly not Nazis. Therefore I reject your attempted use of Godwin's Law, please come up with a valid response. -- GunnerMike89 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your "refined" search method is fatally flawed, and negates your argument. For example, this reasonable search would "prove" that the Holocaust did not occur. I'm sure you
- I would like to remind you both that we are not here to discuss how to search on Google, nor are we here to discuss the results of different combinations. GunnerMike89, the point that Fuhgettaboutit was making was that searching for the terms sans quotes will indeed look for pages with any or all of the search terms in it, ergo your massive result. Search for the term "Top gun mach 2" without quotes results in thousands of results; putting it in quotes results in precisely four, and putting a more refined search (+"Top gun mach 2" +Ontario +band) results in precisely zero. --Dennisthe2 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you did say differently. You stated that without quotes you get hits for "every page in which those 4 words appear in any order". This is not true. The order of those words creates different results, not only a different sorting order.[4][5] Of course, since no common phrases can be created by rearranging the words rock, 4, flag, and umbrella, there will not be a great difference in search results. If you rearranged the words in a phrase such as these two searches[6][7] you will notice a drastic difference in results, an increase in hits of approximately 296%. GunnerMike89 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Did I say differently? Your citation of 500,000 results, as if that means something relevant to this subject, was what was referred to and my point stands. The number is irrelevant and a search for those exact words returns no relevant hits. The fact that the ordering algorithm sorts results to the top, and none of the links in the first few pages are to this fictitious thing also proves the point, though there is no reason to search in this untargeted manner unless you wish to cite a large number that doesn't tell you anything about how often the actual thing searched for appears online.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. Order is actually part of Google's algorithm for finding and sorting search results --GunnerMike89 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable hoax, article creator has landed on WP:AIV for his messing around with this AfD. Sandstein 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dont Delete no user related to this article is located at WP:AIV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by clayzer (talk • contribs).
- comment - Clayzer, please note that the reason you are no longer at AIV is because the issue has been dealt with and closed. --Dennisthe2 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- wow way to make an unverifilable claim. i think that comment should be deleted dennis--Clayzer 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can find where you edited this here, note your name on top and the part in green where this was added. Sir, I will be blunt: lying about this will get you NOWHERE. --Dennisthe2 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- wow way to make an unverifilable claim. i think that comment should be deleted dennis--Clayzer 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- comment - Clayzer, please note that the reason you are no longer at AIV is because the issue has been dealt with and closed. --Dennisthe2 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- The bit about attacks from people including Wikipedia administrators is vaguely amusing. The "fictional band industry?" "Overwhelming evidence for the case of fictional presence?" Uhm... Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no reliable soruces provided, and none are findable via Googling. -- Whpq 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't Delete - The sources are highly reliable, how much more reliable could one hope to find? Anyways it's a great band that has had a great effect on Canadian culture. Is there a Canadian Wikipedia that is unbiased towards Canadian life?--GunnerMike89 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- What reliable sources? You haven't shown us where they are. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- COMMENT - noting that User:Clayzer is vandalizing this AFD. Recommending salting, and reporting again to AIV. --Dennisthe2 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Part of this vandalism includes changing votes of other users [8]. I've undone these edits. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ya beat me to it, man. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Part of this vandalism includes changing votes of other users [8]. I've undone these edits. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Commit acts of aggressionOppressDelete Fails WP:BAND, insufficient reliable third-party coverage, and the vandalism sure isn't helping. ShadowHalo 09:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)- At least someone has a sense of humour. --GunnerMike89 01:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the only two proponents of this article thus far consist of two people - one of whom is attempting to distort what he pulls up as evidence to the point of being untruthful (case in point, stating that he didn't say anything about Nazis in response to my citing of Godwin, which was in response to his...well, mentioning nazis by way of a bogotified google search), the other who was blatantly vandalizing the AfD. Under the circumstances, can we close and delete on the grounds of WP:SNOW? --Dennisthe2 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that my analysis of the "evidence" that the Delete proponents present has distinctly proven the inaccuracy of their arguments. For example, their twisting of the Google search engine, etc. Let's get some input from Canadian members. They'll inform you of the significance and notability of TopGun: Mach 2. --GunnerMike89 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would recommend against closing this after only two days; finding reliable third-party coverage can sometimes take a couple days. Plus, keeping this for a few more days should prevent any reason to recreate the article on the grounds that there wasn't enough discussion, etc. (and then the page can be speedied without any worries, assuming the page is deleted). I've watchlisted the page to make sure that nobody's votes get changed/removed again. ShadowHalo 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Nonsense/hoax (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above and close early per Dennis. Natalie 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete; this article is admitted trolling per [9]. I would speedy db-nonsense myself but might be considered an "involved" admin per an earlier block. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- (comment removed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GunnerMike89 (talk • contribs).
- Yes, and I also remember blocking you indefinitely, but I thought there was some hope of getting actual contributions out of you after you admitted on ANI you'd been playing games and that you'd been caught. Read this page and see how many people's time you wasted. Are you going to stop now, or do we have to indef-block about five more accounts? Newyorkbrad 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- {Comment by blocked user removed, GunnerMike people who are blocked for trolling don't get to participate in this discussion) 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GunnerMike89 (talk • contribs) — GunnerMike89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Wow, why is my narrow field of expertise being brought into this discussion? I'm deeply offended, whoever posted that tag, please remove it. I take personal attacks very seriously; I'm proud of my great knowledge on TopGun: The Band and TopGun: Mach 2, please don't try to take that away from me. GunnerMike89 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I put it there because you posted the comment under a pseudonym - which if this behavior is any indication, is you. I am not removing it. --Dennisthe2 20:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, it would be very fair to say this. --Dennisthe2 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, why is my narrow field of expertise being brought into this discussion? I'm deeply offended, whoever posted that tag, please remove it. I take personal attacks very seriously; I'm proud of my great knowledge on TopGun: The Band and TopGun: Mach 2, please don't try to take that away from me. GunnerMike89 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- {Comment by blocked user removed, GunnerMike people who are blocked for trolling don't get to participate in this discussion) 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GunnerMike89 (talk • contribs) — GunnerMike89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete per above /Blaxthos 17:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --InShaneee 19:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Jump up on top of page until it is driven into the ground and deleted, that article is serious funny (regardless of it it means to be or not!). Should be added to bad jokes and other nonsense before it is deleted. Mathmo Talk 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- BJAODN?! Surely you're joking! --Dennisthe2 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, I really am being deadly serious with wheels and knives! Read for instance the intro sentence (TopGun: Mach 2 is a fictional band, a great Canadian folklore myth of great status in Southern Ontario and The legend has a long and historic history, with many different stories of the bands many memorable tours, albums, and cameo appearances in big-budget Hollywood movies), and the entire subsection "Denial of TopGun: Mach 2". Mathmo Talk 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- ....yeahhhh. You gotta point there. Tack a BJAODN for me as well, with an emphasis on N. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, I really am being deadly serious with wheels and knives! Read for instance the intro sentence (TopGun: Mach 2 is a fictional band, a great Canadian folklore myth of great status in Southern Ontario and The legend has a long and historic history, with many different stories of the bands many memorable tours, albums, and cameo appearances in big-budget Hollywood movies), and the entire subsection "Denial of TopGun: Mach 2". Mathmo Talk 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- BJAODN?! Surely you're joking! --Dennisthe2 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete LazyDaisy 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
bjaodn that is is definetly where this hilarious article belongs, i completely agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.31.129 (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — 70.48.31.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 'BJAODN I could not agree with you more this article is the funniest BJAODN i have ever seen! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.31.129 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — 70.48.31.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- BJAODN - I agree with 70.48.31.129, this article is very humourous. We should have it enshrined in Wikipedia's history. GunnerMike89 03:08, 31 January 2007 (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.
