Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Remorse 1981

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Remorse 1981

See above entry on Spinsane. A Google search for this group reveals 68 hits once the mirrors are factored out--hardly a large number for a computer-oriented group. Not notable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:49, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. A simple google search for "Remorse ASCII" yields another 368 hits. What, in your book, constitutes a "large number" and since when did Wikipedia require a large number of google hits to be a valid and worthy subject? [[User:Radman1|Radman1 (talk)]] 15:17, Oct 17, 2004 (PST)
  • Keep. I am horrified that the viability of articles are defined by their search hits on Google, a commercial service. At worst, this is arbitrary, at best, it's merely misguided censorous activity by a myopic tot. [[User:jscott|jscott (talk)]] 18:47, Oct 17, 2004 (EST)
  • Not notable. Delete this AND RaD Man, which is obviously a vanity page about User:Radman1, which User:jscott has also contributed to. Note that, according to his User page, Radman's email address is radman (at) acid (dot) org. Seems like the two users (or perhaps one?) have an agenda. RickK 04:59, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • It would appear that the purpose of Wikipedia is to keep itself the blandest, most un-reaching and extra-myopic it can manage, according to the army of bureaucrat trainees infecting this excellent social/scholarly experiment. There is something deeply ironic about a page being dismissed as a "vanity page" and called for deletion by a pair of critics who each shower their user information pages with citations of every wikipedia entry that has seen the glory of their chubby fingers. Extra bonus points for your theory that I am, in my deepest dreams, RaD Man. --Jscott 05:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This seems like a troll, however I'll respond anyway (it might clear up a few things for a few other editors). User pages cannot be classed as vanity pages, because they are not encyclopaedia articles. User pages are a way of communicating to others the work you've done, keep a list of links you find useful, provide others with a bit of information about you, etc. I also note that Jscott is either trolling or is being highly sarcastic when he speaks of "this excellent social/scholarly experiment" because his user page is basically a rant about how Wikipedia is a massive failure. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This may initially seem uninformative, but there are many a person out there that views this as historical information. I'd think that having LESS hits in a search would make this more of a candidate for historical reasons than not.. However, basing a subject's "worthiness" by how many hits gets on a search engine is just rediculous anyway.. (: --Eto 23:46, 17 Oct 2004 (PST)
    • Possible sockpuppet vote.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 07:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd be wary to call Eto a sockpuppet, he's been around for a month and has simply made few edits. Better have a dev check if you're that worried. —siroχo 22:09, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no justification to classify this as a vanity page and VfD, nor do I see evidence of a so-called 'agenda'. I was once part of this early computer art movement and precious little -- too little -- has been documented. Kudos to RaD Man & those who helped him in populating Wikipedia with fascinating information on the early computer art scene.--Afterimage 07:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • First edit by this user. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:19, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • WP is for verifiable, verifiably notable info "Too little documented" is evidence that it is not yet ready for WP. --Jerzy(t) 13:26, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 07:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. jni 12:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --*drew 12:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: An "underground" group where people don't use their real names and don't document what they're doing is one that cannot be verified. Delete for being unverifiable. Geogre 13:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Define "unverifiable" and define "document what they're doing". Seems you're wrong on both counts. -- [[User:Radman1|Radman1 (talk)]] 07:12, Oct 18, 2004 (PST)
  • Keep. - If journalists used the wikipedia method of verification (the no-less-than-1000-hits-on-google method), all news would be uninformative, bland, and written for noone higher than the lowest common denominator. - Lifefeed 19:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Improv 20:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge and redirect to ACiD Productions, I'm not comfortable deleting this outright and this is its parent company. —siroχo 21:39, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a real part of an interesting history. No it wasn't covered by the mainstream media, but the demoscene impact was still important. This is at least as important as an article on an obscure dancer/poet/other-dead-or-dying-art jericho4.0 02:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: promo, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. For 20 years people have been making art with their computers in a consistent underground art scene. A free, net-based wikipedia seems the obvious place to chronicle this. Too bad wikipedia is more about promoting it's own tiny idea of information revolution than it is about real information --Guybrushnd 06:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is, of course, difficult to assess the notability of an artist or art group, especially in its own time, and it may be the case that years or decades from now Wikipedians will decide that this group and its members were notable after all. However, several factors make me doubt their notability at this time. First, as ASCII/ANSI art is almost exclusively an Internet phenomenon, it seems reasonable to expect that established and notable individuals/organizations/tools in that field would score much better on the Google and Alexa tests than these do. (I've run numerous searches on terms I found in this and related articles; many have a low number of results, and many others are difficult to judge due to significant percentages of unrelated results.) Second, most of the information provided in these articles is very trivial and unduly focused on politics within the group and the "scene". In contrast, little attempt is made to demonstrate a significant effect or influence on other artists or art forms (and we should expect an encyclopedic artist or group to have had such an effect). Third, the fact that these articles are vanity articles, i.e. created by their own subjects, is worrisome. If their subjects were really encyclopedic, it seems to me that some third party should have been inspired to write about them before now.
    • Comment 1: It seems that there are a lot of invalid votes being cast in this and related polls. The deciding administrator should remember to check thoroughly for them.
    • Comment 2: There are a number of related articles that haven't been nominated for deletion. Some of them may need to be deleted, NPOVed, or otherwise cleaned up, depending on the outcome of the votes that have been listed. —Triskaideka 17:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. GRider 18:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alkivar 01:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Carr 18:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to ACiD Productions. Subgroup not notable on its own. — Gwalla | Talk 19:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sock-puppets galore. Ambi 00:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg 05:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: if this survives VfD, then it needs cleanup to remove peakcock terms. I support because it seems to be part of the artscene movement. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. "Too little documented" is evidence that it is not yet ready for WP. --Jerzy(t) 13:26, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia needs articles like thisPassw0rd 14:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with ACiD Productions and redirect. --Michael Snow 17:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Farside 19:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So... why was this deleted? I thought there was recomended minimum of a 2/3 vote for deletion, this didn't come anywhere near that. - Lifefeed

10 Delete's to 13 Keep's unknown how many keeps are Sock Puppets. Either way I agree that doesnt look like 2/3rds to me. But its gone now, if you want it back you need to post it on the VfU thread Alkivar 22:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

14 valid keeps to 4 valid deletes. Looks like a valid deletion to me. RickK 04:20, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)