Misplaced Pages

Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising

Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like this article to be undeleted because I think the main reason for which it was deleted (that it was unsourced) no longer applies. Please see the Hungarian version of the article (from which the English one was translated), the author listed all the sources. Also, the article was originally planned to be a trivia section of the revolution's article, but that article was long enough in itself and in HuWiki it already has several sub-articles, so we thought why not have a separate article for this too? They are interesting, they are true (and now referenced) and tidbits like this help bringing history closer to the average reader. (I know the title was unencyclopedic but it can be changed.) – Alensha  16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per my nom. – Alensha  16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - I agree with User:Alensha. --Hkoala HU 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I believe the article, in its deleted form was a WIP, and would have evolved into a useful subarticle of the main 1956 article - a section of stories and anecdotes (of which there are many) which may not be quite as sourced or NPOV enough to fit in a FA article, but is certainly part of the story, this may also serve as a staging article for materials which may become better sourced, referenced and put into an objective (historical) form to be shuttled into the FA article. The article should also be renamed "Anecdotes of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956". István 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - This really doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article. Anecdotes, tidbits, and "special moments" are not really encyclopedic material. I would support userfication for extraction of encyclopedic content of course. Cute stories/anecdotes don't need their own article. There are, of course, verifiability concerns too, which is why it probably shouldn't be directly restored to the main space anyway. Wickethewok 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and rename, pretty much for the same reasons already stated. We're working on a whole bunch of articles eventually to become a comprehensive survey of everything about the 56 revolution and the anecdotes will be nice to have. :) K. Lastochka 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I agree with User:Alensha. Nyikita 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - I agree with User:Alensha. --nagytibi 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - Trivia are generally not expelled from wikipedia. I would regard it as a problem if they would be, while I would not think it a problem if an article is readable, though that often triggers suspicion as I have experienced. The article is a sidebar to the main article about Hungary's revolution and in my view its content is more than just anecdotes. These are facts and events which are worth knowing if you want to get a clear picture about Hungary's 1956 revolution. Don't we want to present information worth knowing in the encyclopedia? As for sourcing, anybody who wants full sourcing in English must wait for another 50 years or more (I myself will lose interest by the end of that period). Regards, --Korovioff 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, trivia should be "expelled" from Misplaced Pages per Misplaced Pages:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles, as it is, by definition, trivial. And, no, this does not mean trivia should instead be in separate articles. Wickethewok 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Apologies what you are saying is just the opposite of what is in your link. As for trivia sections developed further, please search on "Lists of trivia" and you will see that there is no such principle in the English wikipedia which you referred to. Only one of the many examples: List of Events and Trivia on Get This Regards, --Korovioff 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and rename I think this is important summary of that revolution. We can find another suitable name.
  • Hints: List of the... Timeline of the... Caracteristic events in..., Main moments in..., etc.

--hu:Rodrigo 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete I agree with User:Alensha. This is an article in huwiki hu:Az 1956-os forradalom különleges pillanatai. --VinceB 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• undelete per above. --mathewguiver 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and rename per Rodrigo. NCurse _work 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - not the kind of stuff for wikipedia. We're not a memorial. --Improv 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: "Special moments?" That's so riven with a particularly undocumented point of view as to make it intractably off the mark from the start. These are valuations that are not part of an encyclopedia's business. Historians can talk about the high points and turning points, but they are writing history. Our aim is less controversialist. Geogre 02:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: I'm pretty sure no one would complain if we changed the title to something a bit more encyclopedic! :) I think "special moments" was probably a clumsy translation, and I agree it sounds pretty silly. K. Lastochka 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: As the original author of the articel I would be completely content with a changed title. Apologies for the original title which only reflect my lack of experience. But please, please do not repeat that the story is undocumented - every bit of it IS documented, pity that this is about a subject from a not English-speaking country. The new title could be "List of trivia on..." or something like that. Whoever still want to keep this story deleted should also propose the deletion of the numberless trivia stories in enwiki. (I would personally regret that.) Regards, --Korovioff 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as the original nominator on AfD. Having checked the hu: version, I agree there are sources over there, including even some decent ones, but still I believe it is impossible to turn this into a NPOV article, which means it should remain deleted. At any rate, the title is very badly biased (as it is on hu: also). Yes there were some bits and pieces that could possibly be included somewhere – but they didn't deserve their own article. I'm willing to reconsider my vote if someone comes up with a title under which this could be turned into a fairly NPOV article, but I have tried to make up such a title and just couldn't. KissL 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

comment I understand your concern, Misplaced Pages really cannot disintegrate into pieces of random collections of facts. Still in my view rules should not be applied too rigidly, otherwise they will get to killing real content. It happens that a subject is surrounded by a big number of worth-knows which you cannot merge into the main article because it will become too long or unfocused. Look at the John Lennon trivia article - no one ever nominated it on AfD and that's right. I don't want to bore you with other examples. The deleted article IS well-sourced, therefore I don't see why it is not NPOV. I admit, the title can be misleading. What about "Hungary's 1956 uprising trivia" or something like that? Regards, --Korovioff 16:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • We're an encyclopedia though -- we're not here to house random collections (there *are* other websites on the internet), we're here to build an Encyclopedia. Trivia doesn't fit in that goal. --Improv 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

another comment I agree with Korovioff. I can also understand the concerns of those who warn against letting Misplaced Pages degenerate into endless collections of useless facts--I agree with that. However, I do think that anecdotes and trivia are not always useless or irrelevant. In this case, IMO, the anecdotes from the Revolution would be first of all, just plain interesting, but also useful as they could help provide a more vivid picture of what actually went on in 56. K. Lastochka 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Crash_My_Model_Car

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crash_My_Model_Car

Crash_My_Model_Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

article had AFD discussion months ago, which decided to keep the article, and has been deleted with no notice by administrator. Stephenmcleod 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

* Undelete; admins who don't know how to behave properly are a bad problem, as in the case of Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Waiting4 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Vote struck. Waiting4 (talk · contribs) (probably a sockpuppet) has been indefinitely blocked from editing wikipedia. Aecis 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse as A1: It's a predicate nominative. If the band is at all worth knowing about, then the authors should say something other than, "This is a band." It's a real problem when people will write more in the DRV entry than the article itself. Geogre 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete or relist. The final version was the result of a massive blanking by 88.107.53.175 (talk · contribs) in the last ten minutes of the article's existence. The original version was a lot better, and would definitely not have qualified for A1. Perhaps for A7, but more likely for prod or AfD. BTW, the AfD resulted in no consensus, not in keep. Aecis 13:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, possibly speedy if Daniel Olsen agrees as this seems to be purely a mistake over the blanking. The version before blanking did have a claim to notability - being signed to first one then another notable record label. --Sam Blanning 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but allow recreation, IFF reliable sources are cited. Every one of the sources in the article were to myspace, the group's own page, their record company, and fan pages. There were no neutral third-party sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was deleted for being "not notable". Misplaced Pages apparently insists that it keeps nonsensical articles on every elementary school, and then deletes a prestigious university founded in the 18th century by Henry Melchior Muhlenberg. The hypocrisy of the deleting admin was well illustrated when he closed several votes for deletion debates on similar articles that I was forced put up to illustrate a WP:POINT. Then, as if to further illustrate my point about incompetent censoring admins, my first attempt bring this to wider attention was vandalised from this page. Here, my hard work to bring this article to the attention of the world needs to be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6ofthebest (talk • contribs)

Close this and recreate the f*ing article already. As has been repeatedly pointed out to the original author (and to his sockpuppets), it would have been far less stressful to all parties involved if they simply re-created the article with only that tiny bit more substance that distinguishes a solid stub from an A7-deletable substub. There's no need to undelete anything, the article only consisted of the following tautology: "The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP) is a Lutheran Theological Seminary in in Philadelphia, PA". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

^^^ See what I mean? There are important considerations here, such as admin accountability and whether they should act in accordance with established rules, and community consensus, not bite the newbies, and not get overly emotionally involved. I have seen no reason why User:Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the article, nor why he should be trusted with any sort of admin responsibility. 6ofthebest 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as A1: Here is the whole of the article: "The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia (LTSP) is a Lutheran Theological Seminary in in Philadelphia, PA." X is X? That's what you consider an article? That's actually less than a Yellow Pages entry, since it merely defines its subject in terms of itself. "The big oak tree is a big oak tree" is not an addition to the sum of human knowledge. If you don't actually know anything about the seminary, then don't fight for your simple sentence. If you do, add it. Geogre 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion per A1, as outlined by Geogre. See below. Aecis 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no content. --Sam Blanning 13:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, Fut. Perf. is bang on the money. What is the point of expending more effort on arguing than on the article? Valid speedy under A1, A4 and A7 - an empty article which in as much as it contains anything has only a restatement of the title with no assertion of notability. WP:CSD being an established rule, the claimed accountability issue is baseless. I suggest we close this since the deleted content is worthless and a new article will require a separate debate (and that only if it is also deleted). Guy 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Future imprefect is an rogue admin. The idea that is has no content is a barefaced lie. The content is more than that; it contains one external link. If you want to expand it, expand it. BUT DO NOT DELETE OTHERS WORK. IT IS RUDE. 26something 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • If it contains only one line of text and only one external link, it qualifies under A3. But either way, do not recreate deleted content, but await the outcome of this discussion. I have redeleted the article and the two redirects you created. If you create them again, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Aecis 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. Either something is notable and it deserves an article or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways, as you are trying. 26something 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Guys, as I said, the easiest solution, spilling the least ink, is this: . Hope you don't mind me recreating it now by an act of slight IAR, after Aecis had actually deleteprotected it. I just added barely enough encyclopedic content to make it stand as a stub. Can we now close this "review" here? Whoever wants to expand it let them expand it; whoever wants to delete it let them propose it for deletion (if there are genuine notability concerns, that is), and we can all live in peace again... Past.Impf. ☻ 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Future Perfect's article, but suggest slapping 26something (talk · contribs), waiting4 (talk · contribs) and 6ofthebest (talk · contribs) with a wikitrout for recreating a deleted article verbatim, trolling, WP:POINT-violating votes in other reviews and possibly sockpuppetry. Aecis 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Close discussion The new article is significantly better than and significantly different than what was there before. No point in wasting more bytes on this discussion. GRBerry 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I maintain my endorsing of the original deletion, so no strike-through there, but I endorse the new article. Still, there is some bell going off in my head telling me that this seminary has more interest even than what has been written up so far, that there is some role it has played in history.... Still, our nasty friends are on blockable ice with these tactics. Geogre 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, endorse blocking of the offensive User, but the article has been recreated to be something meaningful, so this DRV is moot. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Close discussion per GRBerry. Apparently he or someone else decided to just create a better article. -Patstuart 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

GFP Personal Finance Manager

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GFP Personal Finance Manager

GFP Personal Finance Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems like a piece of genuine English-language software to me, check project link

* Undelete - I believe it used by the good Christians at Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Waiting4 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. Aecis 13:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: Valid AfD closure. It was unanimous among signed and registered accounts. The "two wrongs" argument was irrelevant, as it always is. Geogre 12:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as noted in AfD therer is no substantive evidence for anything more than mere existence. Just another SourceForge project. Guy 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No reliable sources and proper AfD procedure followed

Newport University (California)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Newport University (California)

Newport University (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a for-profit unaccredited "school" fails WP:CORP and lacks WP:V As the closing admin said, "I find it rather disturbing that so many established editors think the number of google hits" when so many of the google hits are unrelated. Closing admin. based decision of "no consnesus" on "numbers" that include "Keep per Silensor" and were thoroughly refuted.

This is for-profit and two newspaper sources have a trival mention of this place that questions its academics.

The most serious argument to keep is the California bar lists it as a "Registered" (note to be confused with the institutions its accredits). According to the bar it "cannot advise prospective students on the advantages or disadvantages of attending unaccredited schools or the quality of the legal education programs provided by the schools." And the California Bar does not "approve or accredit correspondence schools"-- which is Newport.

Hence, we have an article about what it is not (unaccredited) with what its website claims. With the sole reason for keeping this on wikipedia is the California bar lists it, but won't accredit it and can't comment on its academics. And we have two trival mentions that call it a business and question its academics. Misplaced Pages is not an ad space for unverifiable businesses. Delete per WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Arbustoo, DRV is not AfD take 2. One really needs a process based issue to overturn an AfD- a plausible result is generally endorsed (and rehashing the exact arguments of the AfD isn't really the place of DRV). JoshuaZ 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per my nom. Arbusto 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry that my closures seem to be taking up the majority of DRV lately... but that's what you get for closing the tough AfDs I guess. I dunno, this was a tough call. But it didn't seem to fail WP:V, and WP:CORP was debatable, JJay said that "the Salt Lake Tribune did an extremely long expose in 1996 when it registered in Utah" which would do a wards meeting WP:CORP. Anyway... just did not feel that there was consensus to delete, or enough of a case to override consensus for WP:V reasons. --W.marsh 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, this is not notable like a real university such as Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Waiting4 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. Aecis 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. What consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (My standard is abuse of discretion, not de novo review, because DRV is not AFD round two.) There is no requirement that reliable sources be available online for free. Nor is it even required that they be online. The AFD nomination introduced one reliable source. Jjay showed multiple others. That, in and of itself, is enough to meet WP:CORP. As there were enough sources referenced to meet WP:CORP, and there is no overwhelming policy argument on the delete side (that is not refuted by the company passing WP:CORP), there is no abuse of discretion. I also note that the school was founded in 1976, so it is safe to assume there is print coverage that is not available online. GRBerry 13:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, there was nothing wrong with the closure here at all. FWIW, I also think notability is clear here, no good reason for deletion. Mangojuice 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. There seems to be considerable confusion in that AfD about a number of things that matter enormously. One is the "registration" issue; note that the Oregon accreditation office (the standard-bearer in the field) says "Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, Alabama, Wyoming, Mississippi and California have either no meaningful standards, excessive loopholes or poor enforcement owing to local policy or insufficient staff." The other is the ".edu" domain, which is essentially meaningless; such domains can be bought and sold like any other. Given that most of the votes to keep are based on misunderstandings of these things, I don't think the AfD should be considered to have consensus. Chick Bowen 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Escuse me if I am misinterpreting, but it seems your arguement is that the people who voted voice an opinion to keep where confused and got it wrong? Please correct me if I am wrong. HighInBC 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My argument is that insufficient information was available during the initial debate to arrive at a consensus. Please remember that AfD is not a vote. Chick Bowen 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I found see nothing to indicate that I was misinformed, or had a lack of information. I didn't mean vote when I said it. HighInBC 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist leaning to overturn and delete One source appeared to be about this school and others. The other sources were about the school's graduates. It fails WP:CORP. The discussion was lengthy but the !voters seemed to misunderstand crucial matters, per Chick Bowen. JChap2007 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I see nothing out of proccess, I see a lack of consensus. HighInBC 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure AfD closed properly by my view. VegaDark 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. An obvious no consensus result (that some people seem to have difficulty accepting) properly closed by the administrator. The nom here states that: Closing admin. based decision of "no consnesus" on "numbers". That is clearly contradicted by the closing admin's statement, which specifically refers to arguments. I might feel differently if User:Arbustoo had contacted the closer prior to taking this to DRV, or had some other evidence to justify his assertion, but that does not seem to be the case. Instead, the nom here seems to want to re-argue the merits of the article. After an excessively long 7-day AfD discussion, with broad participation and 29 posts from user:Arbustoo, I don't think that is necessary. It is also not the role of DRV. I will say, though, that characterizing a 2,500 word article focused on the school, that includes interviews with Newport's founder and various employees, as "trivial" is a bit of a stretch. The description of the registration process with the California Bar is also highly misleading, given the strict criteria applied by the Bar. However, that was all discussed ad nauseum during the AfD debate. In short, I agree with User: Chick Bowen, who argues to overturn the decision, but concludes his post by writing: I don't think the AfD should be considered to have consensus. The discussion did not have consensus, which is why it was properly closed as "no consensus" --JJay 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not the point to rehash the AfD discussion. JoshuaZ 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for the helpful words. Please add the comment to the top, right below User:Arbustoo's 200 words on trivial coverage, academics, the California Bar etc. --JJay 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Deletion review is not necessary for secondary listings on AFD. Yamaguchi先生 21:35, 14 November 2006
• Endorse closure I advocated deletion but if the closing admin thinks that the keep arguments were strong enough to make it a no consensus that's the admin's perogative. As observed by Yamaguchi, there is no rule against listing this again at some future point. JoshuaZ 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

General Mayhem

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem

General Mayhem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe that this article was deleted without consensus (4 keep, 3 delete at the end of voting) and that it is notable enough to justify inclusion in our encyclopedia. This article's subject is an online forum with almost 20 million posts and 33 thousand hits in Google. The article did not violate the core policies of WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV and thus I don't think it should have been deleted on the basis of a guideline and without community consensus. —Lantoka 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn If other websites such as SomethingAwful and HardOCP have Wiki entries then there is no reason that Genmay should not be able to have their's as well. From what I can see it looks as if there are some biased admins that are responsible for the deletion of this article. I believe it's only fair to allow the article to return.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.31.242 (talk • contribs)

• Overturn as nominator. See reasoning above. —Lantoka 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no mention of notable sources appeared on the AfD and none have appeared here. AfD is not decided by pure weight of numbers. Google hits are not proportional to the number of reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Evidence simply wasn't presented that this topic met/meets WP:WEB. If we are going to keep ignoring WP:WEB every time a site we've heard of is nominated for deletion, we should really not keep it as a guideline. --W.marsh 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. The only argument I can see for overturning it is that Snaafu might have wanted to add sources (the other three keep votes only talked about how large and active the forum was, which is not a WP:WEB criteria). However, post counting and google hit counting is not research. Find some reliable sources first (I didn't see any in the first skim of the google hits). ColourBurst 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Lack of independent published, non-trivial sources was cited as the main reasoning for closing as delete. Until some are presented, this really shouldn't be overturned. Wickethewok 06:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, number of !voters is to be used only as a rule of thumb, arguments do count. In this particular case, closing sysop's decision to delete article that fails WP:V and WP:RS looks perfectly legitimate. MaxSem 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So the fact that the total keeps outweight the total deletes doesn't matter at all? Does this not set a dangerous precedent? There was no consensus to delete this article, yet it got deleted anyway, and it's losing its appeal despite this procedural injustice. This concerns me. —Lantoka 11:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, numbers don't matter at all. This case won't be setting precedent either, that precedent is long since established. Weight is about strength of argument, not numbers. I can't see the deleted article, so I don't know if Snafuu did cite reliable sources. If he had, that action alone would have outweighted everything else in the discussion. GRBerry 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't... the only edit at all after the AfD started was 1 instance of vandalism. --W.marsh 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• There actually is no user "Snafuu", actually, that comment appears to have been added by User:Indolences. Wickethewok 14:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm just too much of an inclusionist, but it really bothers me that a perfectly decent article that is comprable in notability to Something Awful and far more notable than obscure things like Lotus Birth and Severe Tire Damage was deleted without community consensus and based on a mere guideline. Deleting people's hard work like this is wrong, and bad for the encyclopedia. This was a fairly developed article. I haven't even posted on that forum in years, and it still upsets me. Twenty million posts people. That's more than ten times the number of Misplaced Pages articles on EN. Ugh! —Lantoka 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And this forum's sister forum, the one it originally broke off of and has since outgrown, has an article too! HardOCP —Lantoka 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

* delete; an online forum is not as notable as a subject like Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia Waiting4 11:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Vote struck. Indefblocked, likely sockpuppet. Violation of WP:POINT. Aecis 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, lack of sources not remedied. No prejudice against recreation iff decent sources are cited. "Jam tomorrow" promises of sources are not, I'm afraid, of much use. Guy 14:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the concerns brought up by the nominator were never addressed. Simply saying that it's one of the largest forums ever doesn't make it verifiable if no sources are given. --Coredesat 16:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.big-boards.com/rd/14/ However, note the rank of 34 is incorrect, by current numbers this board should be ranked 20th largest community, I would also like to point out that the lone popularity of the site is noteable in it's own right http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=genmay.com (also note genmay.net) and at least one site considers it to be amongst the likes of digg http://www.2spare.com/item_62350.aspx --Fittysix 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the big-boards link posted, when sorted by Rank, it appears as the 647th most active forum. When sorted by total members, it appears as 927th. And as for the 2spare.com link provided, that is copied and pasted directly from the old Misplaced Pages article (they even kept in the text that would have linked to references, as can be seen by the in the text, so that wouldn't count as a reliable source on its popularity.

Oh, and I've noticed that in the 2spare.com link, every word of that entire piece is copied and pasted straight from the relevant Misplaced Pages articles, without any credit given, from a quick glance at it. Perhaps someone should fire off an email. ;) --Dreaded Walrus 07:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That big-boards alexa ranking is incorrect as-per the alexa ling I posted above, genmay (with the sum of both domains ranking) should be in the top 400 approximately. --Fittysix 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Like this? --Dreaded Walrus 08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what this comparison accomplishes other than that the other sites are larger, and myspace puts those all to shame, it's all a matter of scale. I'm not disputing the importance of the other mentioned websites, I'm disputing the importance of this one.--Fittysix 08:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Allow recreation per Guy. I'm staying short of endorsing deletion: I think that if this debate had an outcome, this is the right one, but I actually don't think this debate had a clear outcome. Still, I don't think we should undelete a huge fan article with no sources: better is if someone just starts over from verifiable info. Mangojuice 18:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep deleted for now, unless independent sources can be found. But google hits are impressive and there are other examples of websites and communities being included. If the article were to be included it needs to be rewritten.--mathewguiver 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is quite similar to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LUElinks. LUElinks has a similar activity level, number of ghits, and overall notability as General Mayhem. Internet forums are not kept just because they have xx million posts (though, once there is a certain level of activity, it usually indicates external sources can be found). --- RockMFR 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to being recreated with reliable sources. It's strength of arguments that count, not numbers. One of the Keeps actually said that verifiability wasn't important. The other said that the website was big, which isn't a valid criterion. There were no valid reasons to keep presented. JChap2007 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Article did not show anything that would be considered notable. I believe this was a good faith delete and should stand. (An aside, the reposting of the article after the delete shows a complete disregard by the creators for the rules and policies of Misplaced Pages. While this has little to do with my vote, I feel it must be noted for the record.) --Kf4bdy 07:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn' Re sources, genmay is reponsible for the walken 2008 presidential hoax, perhaps you've heard of it? This satisfies WP:WEB. Rizla 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it' Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.153.170 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't expect others to do your research for you, present the sources. Links or print material citations are acceptable. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it Genmay is has recieved press coverage as well as widespread internet coverage as a result of the "Walken 2008" shens. This, in addition to the extremely large database of users and posts probably makes it more noteworthy than half the crappy articles on Misplaced Pages. It is also referred to in the Christopher Walken article as a (now broken) citation. GG WIKIPEDIA! Ggnext 08:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto, present some links or print citations. Just saying there are sources doesn't carry any weight. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45757

http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5833740.html

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/194062.htm

http://digg.com/celebrity/The_origin_of_Walken_for_President_2008_revealed

etc.. etc... etc... Rizla 08:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rizla, you're the man. Ggnext 08:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've taken a look through them, I'm going to advise you to turn those "etc" into sources too. All of these talk about the hoax primarily, with General Mayhem getting only a trivial mention as the source of the hoax. That doesn't meet WP:WEB. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the original thread would be of use? —Lantoka 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That'd be useful for writing an article after notability was established otherwise, but it's not independent and so doesn't satisfy WP:WEB's criteria for establishing notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are... are you serious? What about the information presented in these links makes it seem as though the site is unremarkable? The hoax recieved national attention, what if someone reads an article about it and wants information on the perpetrators of the prank? Well, they won't be turning to Misplaced Pages, apparently. Do we need a New York Times article about how Genmay is going to change the world before we're deemed "notable"? I honestly think you're just looking for reasons to delete this wiki. Ggnext 08:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is true but is mainly due to the nature of a hoax. There is no denying where the hoax originated, you can see for yourself here: http://genmay.net/showthread.php?t=562197. Nobody wants to give credit for a hoax and bring the people who created it notoriety. But the hoax itself did make many, many newspapers, television shows, etc. I agree it isn't the most compelling thing under WP:WEB but it DOES meet the test. This Combined with its immense size warrants the article. There are many, many other articles which meet a standard that is less than this for notability. Rizla 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes the hoax notable, not the site. For the site to meet WP:WEB there has to be "multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage" of it. The "non-trivial" part means that it has to be the subject of the coverage and the coverage has to be more than a brief piece. A passing mention in an article primarily about something other than the site doesn't qualify. Your energy would be better spent trying to find some coverage that qualifies rather than arguing that these do. (And again, size doesn't matter here.) — Saxifrage ✎ 09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Per above, you're looking for reasons to delete this page rather than looking for ways to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. In fact, your exclusionist attitude works to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. Although it may be difficult to source, Genmay is indeed a notable internet community, and I would hope that as a moderator you'd support Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith. As I commented on your talk page, this deliberately obtuse Wiki-elitist act is tired. I nominate the article for cleanup. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 10:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn If Something Awful, Fark, and YTMND are worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, then certainly Genmay is as well. Just because the article is unsourced and/or poorly written doesn't make it a candidate for deletion -- such a condition makes it a candidate for cleanup. Genmay is without a doubt worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn As per above, if many other websites, of comparable nature mind, have wiki pages, then aren't we establishing a dangerous precedent of elitism in the face of evidenciary support? Surely the evidence provided is in no means circumstantial, as the links directly mention the forum, the forum thread shows the natural progression of the idea, and easily proves the claims that they were responsible for this event that received mass-media coverage. It should be allowed to exist and should be cleaned up. Any other alternative is quite simply double-standards elitism and should not be tolerated in a free and open medium that seeks to remove the insanities that editorial injustice leaves on other educational facilities. I know that I surely turn to wikipedia now ANY time I have any question or issue. Does this right not extend to those wishing to find out about large internet communities? We have articles for far smaller communities, this is a community with over 40,000 active members, much like Fark, SomethingAwful, Offtopic and they all have pages. As I've stated, this double standard appears to boil down to both stubbornness and unneeded elitism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.9.43 (talk • contribs) .
  • Inclusion is not a right, and your assertion is unsupported by objective evidence - YTMND scores over twenty times as many ghits as this, and is also in the top 2,000 on Alexa, an order of magnitude better than this. So instead of hyperbole, how about some citations to reliable sources from which we can verify the content, and especially the neutrality, of the article? Guy 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when is the neutrality of the article disputed and since when does that justify deletion rather than a rewrite? 169.232.125.106 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Have any of you even looked at what has been included in http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Internet_forums? I suggest you delete half of those pages as well. Including Gaia, offtopic, hardocp, and somethingawful forums. There are obviously serious problems with WP:WEB and it is frustrating to see it being sited as a roadblock for this article. This is not a vanity entry, there are many people who would like to know about genmay due to its sheer size, ability to distribute memes, and status within the internet community. It is my opinion that one should err on the side of inclusion when there is obvious debate here. If you look at the forum pages I've cited earlier all undergone deletion threats at one time and were eventually kept. You can reference obscure policy pages all you want, go ahead, but we all know there will always be flaws and it does not apply to every single case. Re: Walken - for this hoax it meets the bare minimum of WP:WEB. It is irrelevant that news sources chose to focus on the hoax and not where it came from. I also dispute that cnet news, digg.com, and the dozens of blogs this is cited in is trivial. These are still sources. I will love it when people come to wikipedia to the chris walken page, look at the hoax entry, click on genmay, and then see "well we're sorry! This page isn't notable enough. Nope, the fact that it created a massive hoax with national news coverage and is one of the largest internet forums just isn't enough justification to keep it in!" Rizla 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. However, I think the hoax might deserve an article seeing as it has numerous sources. --Wafulz 15:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you take a look at two or three wikis about internet forums such as Genmay, it's easy to see that the precedent is, and has been, to write about the site, it's history, pranks performed, etc. If you wish to rewrite twenty or thirty articles, dealing with forum members like Genmay's all along, then changing them might be feasible. Honestly, though, what you're proposing - the writing of several new articles and the deletion of many others - sounds like a massive waste of time and energy. Sorry to be realistic, but an article about General Mayhem that talks about the hoax would do just as well as an article about the hoax that talks about General Mayhem.169.232.125.106 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • From the sources presented, I see lots and lots of details about only the hoax, with "Oh, Genmay did it" at the end. From what verifiable information we have, it would make logical sense to have an article for the hoax and a brief mention of the forum somewhere in the article. All I'm proposing is one article for the hoax instead of on article for the forum, and nothing else. --Wafulz 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • And I'm proposing an article that is a consolidation of the site, history, and the hoax. Internet forums don't get in the news for much OTHER than crap like hoaxes. Now, what I'm saying is that you can delete every single wiki for internet forums in the listing that Rizla posted and replace them all with wikis about the hoaxes that they perpetrated - since that's pretty much all that they are "referenced" for - or, you could maintain the precedent that's been set since the dawn of Misplaced Pages and just have an article about the General Mayhem site with a feature on the hoax, like all the others. Besides, what about possible future hoaxes that originate at Genay? Are we going to have 50 different wikis about 50 different hoaxes? Or one that succintly features them all? Yeah, you can ALWAYS follow the rules down to the very last period, but when the rules are meant to cover such a large subject matter as of that contained within Misplaced Pages, the rules aren't always one hundred percent effective, efficient, or applicable. You people act as though the WP:WEB was sent down from God; I mean, they're more like guidelines, anyway.169.232.125.106 20:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, many notable internet forums/communities contribute significantly by helping to shape the online world. Basically, they have helped to perpetuate language, fads, culture, whatever (ie YTMND, Something Awful, Slashdot, etc). Other forums, such as vampirefreaks.com become well-known because of infamy, such as shootings, in combination with notable, verifiable content, such as popular or successful bands. Take close notice to what I've been saying: I haven't once mentioned WP:WEB- what I'm stressing is the verifiability of an article concerning Genmay. As it stands, the verifiability about the forum itself would be completely empty. Even notability isn't set in stone- it's a guideline to help with official policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V, which have very, very few (if any) exceptions. Until an article about Genmay can meet all three of those official policies, it will not be allowed to exist. --Wafulz 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note Alaskamiller (talk · contribs) has apparently chosen to recreate the article, twice, as General mayhem forums and General mayhem. Both have been tagged for db-repost. Fan-1967 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Fascinating information that does not pertain to this conversation in the least. Thanks for contributing nothing. 169.232.125.106 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please be civil. --Wafulz 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Please remain on topic.169.232.125.106 23:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • This is relevant to admins and bueracrats who might be stumbling upon recreations of the article to see if the db-repost tag holds merit. --Wafulz 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn how many times must Genmay go through these deletion reviews. Do you keep deleting the page with hopes it will stay deleted for good? Saxifrage abused his admin and used his own biased views on what is notable enough for the deletion of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.95.27 (talk • contribs)
• Overturn Grounds for original deletion are questionable at best --Fittysix 23:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)User has three edits not related to Genmay--Wafulz 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that excuses really matter, but I rarely bother to log in except for discussion, and my IP is dynamic. --161.184.204.75 04:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC) --Fittysix 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC) I would also like to add that WP:WEB does not entirely apply to a website that is no more than a community/forum. Subject of published works or awards, noone writes books about or hands awards to sites with questionable content such as genmay. By using only the guidelines of WP:WEB than even goatse would not qualify, as I know of no awards or publications that even trivially mention it, but the notability of goatse is undisputable. --Fittysix 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Books aren't the only things that are published. Newspaper articles are published, as are website articles. Therefore this, for example, could be described as a published work asserting the importance of Les Reed. Do you see? --Dreaded Walrus 04:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, and as for Goatse itself, I can find numerous mentions of goatse in published works. --Dreaded Walrus 04:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The point I'm trying to make here is that WP:WEB does not properly apply to the unique structure of a forum-only website, for the most part the only people that would be knowledgeable enough and consider a forum notable enough to publish works about it are those that frequent it, however the infamy of the forum grants notability in its own right as per my response to Coredesat --Fittysix 07:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn To allow articles on other internet forums (none of which have any "references") but not this one doesn't make any sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.196.47 (talk • contribs)
• Coment. Let me remind everyone that "If article A then article B" is not valid in this discussion. This is about the Genmay article. --Wafulz 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This point, on the contrary, seems extremely valid and I find it to be in very poor taste that you simply brush it off. Do you believe that its fair for one article to be deleted while another article of lesser informative value remains? 169.232.125.106 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but you are quite mistaken. It is very much valid.
    • No, the point is actually extremely invalid. If those articles do not meet the criteria for inclusion, then it should be discussed on their respective talk pages and/or AfD nominations. This is a deletion review for Genmay, which is about Genmay's article, Genmay's sources and Genmay's content- other articles are not involved in this. In short, the validity of other articles does not provide evidence that Genmay meets all three of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. --Wafulz 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Excuse me? So if Article A is worthy of Misplaced Pages and Article B is similar or superior in nature to Article A, then how is Article A not worthy of Misplaced Pages? The other articles that "aren't involved in this", as well as the Genmay article, have come under such review several times and are still there. Why should GM be the one to go? Even today, several member of GM added the tags to other such articles to be considered for deletion, and what happened to those wikis? Are THEY being put on the chopping block? No, in fact, they are now under lock, so that they cannot be put up for deletion. Take a step back and look at the issue at hand for two seconds: the problem here is not with Genmay's article, it's with Misplaced Pages's horrible double-standards. Don't say to me that the other articles will be considered for deletion if they're put up for deletion, when putting them up for deletion isn't even an option at this point. It's all or nothing here, if you're going to sacrifice one good article, sacrifice them all and save some goddamn credibility.
        • Who said article A is worthy? Nobody. If it exists and shouldn't, then it will get deleted in good time and that has no bearing on this article. If it exists and should, then since it's not the exact same thing it's entirely possible that there are different reasons for keeping it than there are for keeping or not keeping this article. This is a really common argument in deletion discussions, and it doesn't work. This article has to stand on its own sources. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • They put up tags for speedy deletion, which are only for articles that do not assert notability or are clearly nonsense. Perhaps you all should actually read through WP:AFD to see how to properly propose and discuss deletion. There were no attempts at discussion, and the articles were locked because dozens of forum members decided to be counter-productive by posting "lol dongs" or some equivalent on the main article space. The talk pages are quite certainly still open for discussion; nomination for deletion is more than just slapping on a tag and waiting for the article to be wiped. Normally, it's at least a five-day discussion, as it was in this case. There is no horrible double-standard. On November 5, deletion for Genmay's article was proposed on the basis of no reliable sources for verification of facts. As it stands today, on November 15, there are still no reliable sources, unlike articles such as YTMND, for example. Crying for the mass deletion of other articles will go nowhere in this discussion- if no verification is presented, then this article will stay deleted. --Wafulz 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Our good mutual friend Saxifrage is the one who suggested that we put up tags for speedy-deletion on these such articles, for the same infraction that the Genmay article was deleted for. Articles that clearly asserted no or few references have not been deleted. And if the articles I'm referring to had been deleted, then there would've been no posting of "lol dongs" on said articles, now would there? So as far as I can see it:
          • 1. Genmay article deleted
          • 2. Us: "Shouldn't other similar articles be deleted, too, then?"
          • 3. Saxifrage: "Put them up for speedy deletion, then."
          • 4. Articles locked - can't be deleted
          • 5. Genmay article still up for deletion
          • 6. Us: " :( "
          • 7. ...
          • 8. Horrible double-standard.
          • 9. "lol dongs"
            • However, none of the articles met the criteria. Rather than pursue civil discussion in the relevant talk pages, the forum members went on a vandalizing spree. In the end, we are still left with no sources about Genmay, some insults thrown around, and some vague threats of further vandalism. In the end, the point isn't about other articles right now- it's about this article and Genmay's lack of sources. I'm not going to bother replying anymore unless someone actually comes forward with sources about Genmay. --Wafulz 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Ok, I have no idea what kind of sources you want us to have. Half the time, you're linking me to a random page written in legalese telling me "it's all right there lololloo so obvious". So what, exactly do you want from us? You said earlier that this isn't about notability, it's about the verifiability of an article concerning Genmay. What the hell does that mean?
                • What we require is evidence of General Mayhem's importance, particularly from reliable sources. In other words, we would need things like its impact on the Internet, publishings about its history, appearances in the media as the main subject, major awards that it has won, etc. These sources must be non-trivial (more than a passing mention), independent (not from Genmay or its members), and from notable, reliable sources (ie, nothing from random weblogs or forum posts or similar things). In order to merit an article, there would have to be several such sources; there would have to be enough sources to form a decent comprehensive article. --Wafulz 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation General Mayhem message board has surely achieved a level of notability that validates the existence of a Misplaced Pages entry. Anything involving the past articles content that could be edited or corrected; such as the quality of the writing or source citation, has no merit in an argument like this. The truth is its original deletion was motivated by a trivial grudge from one of its former users.

General Mayhem has long roots in the internet world. At one point it was a part of HardOCP, which has an entry. When a large conflict surfaced they broke apart and became independent. The battle that ensued because their exodus is enough for an article in itself, but Genmay did not stop there.

General Mayhem was the sole perpetrator of the Walken 2008 hoax, which made national news and television during its peak. Walken recently, almost a year after the fact was documented on Conan O’Brein still talking about the hoax. This can all be proven in the General Mayhem archives. For this fact alone, Genmay deserves an article.

General Mayhem is also the source of internet jargon, and Photoshopped images which are stolen by other websites for profit. The group frequently comes together to perform internet acts otherwise impossible (see Drawball: Bunchies (also documented in the archives)). The group does none of this for profit like other websites, only for the enjoyment of the users. The users at Genmay do not receive profit from their shenanigans; at least allow them some recognition.--BCS— BrianBlack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This isn't about how wonderful the forum is. This is about sources and verifiability. --Wafulz 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A Misplaced Pages article isn't an award. More words aren't going to do you any good. Show us the sources and you get an aritcle. It's as simple as that. Listen to the people in your forum trying to explain what it takes to get an article here—they're talking sense. By the way, nice avatar. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is fact that Genmay is responsible for notable internet memes worthy of discussion at Misplaced Pages. It is fact that Genmay has a unique forum culture worthy of discussion at Misplaced Pages. It is fact that Genmay is one of the largest forums on the internet; thus, omission of Genmay from Misplaced Pages leaves Misplaced Pages incomplete. It is fact that Genmay and its members exert a strong influence on internet culture; thus again does omission of Genmay from Misplaced Pages leave Misplaced Pages incomplete. To put it another way, you two are both completely out to lunch on this one. The argument put forth by BCS isn't "Genmay is wonderful." To latch on to that and only that is intellectually dishonest, certainly something I wouldn't expect from an allegedly impartial Misplaced Pages editor. Rather, the argument is "Genmay is every bit the source of memes and internet culture that Something Awful, Fark, and 4chan (etc) are." Your collective unwillingness to believe this, even faced with a 40,000 member forum screaming that you're wrong, violates the spirit (if not the letter) of Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith. TONS of unsourced or poorly sourced articles remain in Misplaced Pages. Why? Because it's blatantly obvious to anybody that they belong, and because someone will eventually get around to sourcing them appropriately. All Misplaced Pages contributors know this. In a position of power at Misplaced Pages, your job is to live and live, not to tear down. You would do well to remember this. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith applies to user interactions, not content. That would be why our "collective unwillingness" doesn't violate its letter or its spirit. In case it needs repeating, the size of your forum is irrelevant as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. Stop bringing it up, because it's a waste of your time. Go find media coverage and bring it back. That's all you have to do. No media coverage you can find? I guess nobody really cares about it then. Found media coverage? Excellent, we'll welcome an article on Genmay based on those sources. It's really very simple. Screaming that you're all notable while not being able to back it up with evidence is just futile. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, compare the times inside that thread with the dates and times of the media articles, all the content contained within proves that it is, in fact, the creation of that forum. If you were the one to do the research rather than rebuff it at face value and not read into it, shows that you aren't maintaining an NPOV. You'll see there's more than enough evidenciary support.

Well, first off, comparing the times and events to reach our own conclusions would be original research, which isn't allowed. Second, we have tons of sources for the hoax, and at best a passing mention of Genmay, meaning that at best we would have an article for the hoax, with a passing mention of Genmay in there. Like Sax said, Misplaced Pages isn't an award or a status symbol- it's an encyclopedia, which has to contain neutral, verified, proven facts. --Wafulz 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is about trivial grudges and vendettas. Sources and verifibility have been proven by many posts before mine. We have responded to your assertions, yet ours involving the Validity of the original deletion have gone overlooked. Power in itself does not justify abuse. By the way, Nice girlfriend.--BrianBlack
  • No personal attacks. The quality and subject of sources has been dealt with already. --Wafulz 01:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That isn't a personal attack I commented neither on Saxifrage nor his content. Saxifrage mentioned my avatar in a way to suggest he is watching me, while I just wanted to remind him that he isnt the only one that can have internet eyes. Sources have been delt with VALIDITY has not.--BrianBlack
      • Pot, meet kettle. The vendetta is being pursued by the Genmay users, not me. That you don't care to understand what people are telling you about what is needed to get the article back up means that I am being irresponsible with my power? Even if I was being irresponsible, I would still not be the one resorting to crime to vent my frustration as the Genmay crowd are. If my ego were truly let loose in this you'd all be banhammered long ago (and it would be a sad and pathetic thing of me to do). Good for you I actually have social and professional ethics. Anyway, you've been told what you need, go find the sources. If they don't exist, accept that the world doesn't care about Genmay yet. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Recreate or keep it. For reference in newspaper citation: Paris Hilton Hack "...had appeared on GenMay.com (short for General Mayhem), an eclectic, no-holds-barred online discussion forum." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/19/AR2005051900711_pf.html --Luikero— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.161.221 (talk • contribs)
  • This is only a passing mention of Genmay- barely a sentence. --Wafulz 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But the prank is good enough for a wiki, right? Maybe we should just make thirty different wikis and consolidate them under "Pranks/Hoaxes of a forum that shall remain unnamed as it is not important enough for an article". Now there's an idea with some merit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.125.106 (talk • contribs)
      • Hyperbole much? So far just the Walken hoax is the only one. The Paris Hilton thing would probably fit better into a celebrity news website as opposed to an encyclopedia. --Wafulz 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict with Wafulz - this is in response to 169.232.125.106) There would not be an article called That time Paris Hilton's phone was hacked into. That information, if it was relatively notable, would be best suited on the Paris Hilton article itself, as it is entirely related to her, and there is no disputing that she is notable enough, and verifiable. There are thousands of newspaper and magazine articles, TV sections e.t.c. around the world that have been dedicated to discussing her. The same cannot be said of General Mayhem, which even in that link posted above by User:80.222.161.221 recieved only a passing mention.--Dreaded Walrus 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The original wikipedia did assert its notability by mentioning it as one of the largest message boards on the internet and cited big-boards as the source. It wasn't totally up to date but it seems that a clean up or a need for citations would have sufficed, not a full fledged, biased delete.

• Overturn This is such a a joke. We've cited references proving we responsible for the walken for president hoax, disseminating the paris hilton hack, and countless other memes. We are in the top 25 on big boards by posts. Ridiculous amounts of blog posts about genmay can be found in google. Yeah, sure not notable at all! I really really appreciate how true to the spirit of wikipedia the admins here are being. It's obvious what the spirit of WP:WEB was. No vanity articles, no advertising. Websites with presence or notability on the web should be in. Where you guys need to step back rethink things is what criterea you use to judge notability. As proven above genmay has a significant presence on the internet, are you denying this? We've given hard sources to quantify these, if you consider them trivial that is your interpretation and smacks of POV. And, oh yeah, we all know like cases should not be treated alike, heck why don't we just throw out 600 years of judicial common law! GREAT JOB WIKIPEDIA YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN! 69.198.128.136 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Kavadi carrier and Wickethewok. Any possibility of notability wasn't even remotely asserted. I find it remarkable how the most vociferous supporters always use the same line, "to allow articles on other internet forums/websites/actors/etc. but not this one doesn't make any sense", but how they barely ever provide any examples. In the rare occassion that they do, the other forum/site/photographer/company clearly and easily meets all the notability criteria, and the whole point becomes moot. Aecis 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not come in here making uninformed votes. If you think no articles were cited as being worthy of deletion, you obviously didn't read the fucking responses. If you think "any possibility of notability wasn't even remotely asserted", then you obviously didn't read the fucking responses. That having been said, please refrain from speaking anymore. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.125.106 (talk • contribs)
    • Perhaps you would like to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have placed a warning on your talk page for your continued behaviour. As for your first sentence, how do you know his vote is uninformed? Because it was his first message here? He could have been watching for a while. Perhaps it's just because his vote was opposed to what you would have wanted. Either way, his vote seems informed enough based upon his summary above. --Dreaded Walrus 10:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.232.125.106 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 15 November 2006.
      • Yeah thanks for that, I seem to be collecting them. Although I appreciate the conclusions that you leap to, I consider his vote uninformed because there has been non-stop quoting of articles of similar nature that are worthy of deletion. Case in point, the eight articles from our favorite letter of the alphabet that I posted about four lines under this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.232.125.106 (talk • contribs) .
        • Guess what, they are all either nominated for deletion, or actually have verifiable content, so your lame ass excuses seem even lamer because you were too dumb to actually do any reading. If you need help with the bigger words in WP:V, then I'm sure your mum will help. The Kinslayer 11:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Kinslayer, can we at least try to remain civil? Responses like that help nobody's cause, least of all your own. —Lantoka 11:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Hope you're talking to this jerk and not me. While you're at it, shoot him one or three warnings. I know I love it. And I see one of these articles up for deletion and around four that have a nice little tag saying that they have no references or sources. So please, Mr. "Kinslayer", don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.
              • I took care of it for you, since I doubted you'd be able to figure out how to do it yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:The_Kinslayer#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FWikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2006_November_13.23General_Mayhem The Kinslayer 11:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And running quickly through the "A's" in the list of internet forums with articles on wikipedia, the following pages don't seem to have sources of the type that you deem necessary for the articles to exist:
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/AR15.com
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/Adequacy.org
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Adrenaline_Vault
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/Airliners.net
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/Apolyton_Civilization_Site
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Army_Rumour_Service
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/AskMen.com
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/Atheist_Forum
  • Once again, these are just the A's. Ban me if you want, now. I'm sick and tired of this site and it's elitist moderators.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.232.125.106 (talk • contribs) .