Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:43, 23 September 2007

Deletion gestapo

Deletion gestapo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A quick search engine test reveals only five results. This subject is clearly non-notable. Juansidious 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Juansidious - did you read the article? It refers to people who want to delete "anything that can’t be validated using the first four hits from a one-word search on Google" - which is precisely what you did! Moreover, there are more references than just web pages. See also Misplaced Pages policy on notability --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚
    
    • If you look through those five hits only one passes Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and that's a really trivial mention. The results aren't any better if you try searching for "deletion Nazi" instead. The notability criteria are not satisfied. Hut 8.5 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Move I'm not an expert on what the different spaces are called/do, but strikes me this is an essay about wikipedia. It's not necessarily bad, and shows some knowledge of the ins and outs of wikipedia. Move it to where the other essays live, or the user's own pages.Merkinsmum 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Most essays are either in the Misplaced Pages: or User: namespace. This one, if moved, would probably do best as a user subpage of the author's. Hersfold 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete (Oh, the irony!). Full of WP:NOR, possibly created by a disgruntled editor to make a point, although the point may be worth making, if reliable sources could be found, but they don't seem to be, the NYTimes one isn't about deletionism, and the Telegraph one is a blog. Only one thing for it... send in the Gestapo! Crazysuit 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (preferred) or at very least userfy. Seems to be calling all deletionists Nazis... sources are largely unreliable, trivial, or on Misplaced Pages itself. Once you get past the POV information, it does provide a fairly decent summary of Deletion ins and outs, though (the one redeeming feature). Hersfold 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Move to project space it is an interesting piece and may be usefull to some wikipedians but is not notable enough for an article. -Icewedge 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I was torn about this, because I think there's a good point in the kernel of the article, but I think the article falls squarely under Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. This is not the way to achieve consensus among editors -- this is gaming the system. Accounting4Taste 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Patent nonsense essay. Keb25 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Make it a Wikiproject - Call it Deletion Resistance. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete cleaned up it might be of minor interest to some in the project space, but utterly irrelevant here --Xorkl000 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The only reliable source mentioning the 'deletion gestapo' is this, and even then it is a quote within a quote. J Milburn 11:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this term is hardly used at all, and is not appropriate as an encyclopedia article. Might be OK as a userspace essay. Hut 8.5 12:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopaedic and non-notable (oh the irony etc) --carelesshx _talk 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Send to extermination camp I am now a member of both the Deletion Gestapo and of the Article Rescue Squadron. --Victor falk 13:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Holocaust "Humour" is both in extremely poor taste and completely unnecessary for this discussion. Please be sensitive. --Xorkl000 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A neutral article could be written, but this one flunks the neutrality test just on the title alone. Having one's creation deleted is a natural consequence of having a "free encylopedia that anyone can edit". That type of freedom to add and subtract is what comes with the concept of a "wiki". I can't vote "keep" or "delete" on this one, since it could be fixed, and wikipedia is one of the notable developments of the first decade of this century. Ten years ago, people didn't have the expectation that their writing could be "published" without prior approval; hence, they never got to the part of being frustrated when something they had posted was taken back down. That said, however, I'm an inclusionist and I would never think of describing any of my deletionist friends to Nazis. Mandsford 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• 'Userify as it's OR and non-encyc. It could be an essay after ruthless editing. Alternately, delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete mein fuhrer! Though I could see a broader article on deletionists maybe having a place in wikipedia, if that's not too meta. Artw 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced and well written. Oh and... the irony is palpable Bjrobinson 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1. "Mediashift, "MySpace, Misplaced Pages Cope With Growing Pains"".

• AfD debates (Web or Internet)
• AfD debates