Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 5 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 10 August 2006 (→[]: closing (del. endorsed)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:18, 10 August 2006 by Xoloz (talk | contribs) (→[]: closing (del. endorsed))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< August 4 August 6 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

5 August 2006

Category talk:Companies of mainland China

Talk page of deleted category need not be deleted, especially when it contains arguments to contest the speedy deletion, to fulfil the {{hangon}} instruction as provided on the {{db-empty}} tag. — Instantnood 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted More grist for User:Instantnood's long-term edit-warring on China-related articles. This post will be followed, if he remains true to form, by a wikilawering response demanding I offer up proof. To which I pre-emptively refer to his ArbCom case -- and to further pre-empt, yes, it's primarily about you and your behavior. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Companies of mainland China

This category was intentionally depopulated, then marked {{db-empty}}. It was marked unresolved in an previous CfD (details provided at category talk:companies of mainland China, but that was deleted too). Depopulating and deleting it is in effect recognising one of the two contesting points of view in the dispute. That's not what administrators when executing speedy deletions should have done. — Instantnood 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted More grist for User:Instantnood's long-term edit-warring on China-related articles. This post will be followed, if he remains true to form, by a wikilawering response demanding I offer up proof. To which I pre-emptively refer to his ArbCom case -- and to further pre-empt, yes, it's primarily about you and your behavior. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was marked unresolved in March of 2005, well over a year ago. Wasn't all of this decided in an Rfar since then? --Kbdank71 10:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Airports of mainland China

Was originally a {{categoryredirect}}, but was tagged {{db-empty}} by user:SchmuckyTheCat. {{Categoryredirect}}s are always kept empty. They're maintained by a bot. — Instantnood 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: User:Instantnood seems to be the only one fighting for Foo of Mainland China (including edit warring and violations of 3RR, I note). Since he knows where the category redirected to, do we need the redirect? --Kbdank71 10:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


GraalOnline page

AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline

The GraalOnline article was on wikipedia since 3 years and the content was accepted by everyone until 2 peoples decide to modify the article because of a dispute between them and the graalonline administration. A private mediation was started but this mediation was badly managed and the mediator was then involved in a private war with pro-GraalOnline people and decided that the article should be deleted, that's how the request for deletion was started.

The reasons to delete the article were changed a few time and the discussion has focused to known if GraalOnline is WP:WEB or not.

GraalOnline (http://www.graalonline.com) is a commercial game and is existing since more than 8 years now, more than 300000 people have played the game and each month 50000 people are actively playing the game. in the discussion lot of arguments have been put on the table to show that the GraalOnline article was notable, a list of 5 reviews of GraalOnline on top gaming web site have been given and should be enough to respect the notable criteria as explained in the WP:WEB#Criteria for web content :

A simple search on google for GraalOnline show more than 60000 results most links are from well known gaming site.

The reason given to delete the article is really strange to me even if i am not a experienced wikipedia User, the main reason is the counting of votes... Most keep votes (16) were argumented with lot of content when Delete votes (17) were just referring to WP:WEB with no arguments or arguments that have nothing to do with GraalOnline. Some sysops have been involved in this discussion and think that the article must be keeped and improved and not deleted.

Thanks for reviewing this decision Graal unixmad 13:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As Unixmad has shown, there are plenty of resources for Graal. The whole problem was the whole critisism section of the article could not be sourced. We should be given the chance to source this article correctly, not just have it removed because a couple of people could not stop adding un-sourced material out of anger. This is very disappointing, since this article has been on the wiki for so long without a problem. Please let us have a Graalonline article here, properly sourced. It can be sourced as shown above. --Moon Goddess 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. While endorsing the closer's discretion to close as he did, personally I would have closed this as 'no consensus' on the basis that the reviews listed above were provided in the AfD and not adequately discussed. While there is apparently a rough majority for deletion (discounting new accounts), it depends on the subject not meeting WP:WEB, so if someone discovers several reviews which aren't from blogs or fansites, those advocating deletion need to address why they don't satisfy WP:WEB. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and if you don't follow the discussion and respond to counterarguments then your 'vote' can be discounted. There's apparently a stupid dramafest going on in this article with people trying to add in unsourced crap that I'm not even going to attempt to understand, and if this was more borderline I might even be inclined to endorse deletion on that basis. But to me this doesn't look that borderline. --Sam Blanning 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Wknight94‎ did acknowledge the sources that Unixmad gave, but he was the only one. Seems everyone else ignored them like they had already made up their mind to delete the article, and the sources were not discussed further to my knowledge. Unfortunately, this whole thing started with a couple of users trying to add unsourced critisism to the article, and trying to advertise their forums throughout the article. In my opinion, the critisism section should have just been removed until it could have been sourced properly, and the rest should have either been sourced, or modified. This can still be done if some members can stop acting out of anger, and do things the right way. --Moon Goddess 16:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Closer's Comments: I do need to emphasise that "by the numbers", I'd have called this no consensus as well, so the charges that I did this as a pure vote-counting exercise are quite wrong. It was my judgement that the delete voters -- most of whom were invoking WP:WEB -- did have a stronger argument than the keep votes. In a nutshell (and I'll get to those "reliable sources" up there next), the keep voters all seemed to be interested first in having a platform to either boost or denegrate GraalOnline, and second if at all in producing encyclopedic content, while the delete voters in my view were looking at the encyclopedia first. Finally, as regards those sources, first note that despite apparently long and arduous conflict over this article, none had made it into the actual article yet. Second, of the five listed, only one of them, in my view, might qualify as reliable:
  • -- appears to just be marketing material.
  • - a three-paragraph web review without so much as a byline
  • - A longer review, no byline, I'm not sure how much editorial reputation this site has
  • - This appears to be more of a blog entry than an article proper; it is hard to tell. This one may qualify as an RS.
  • - Short review, in spanish, no byline I can see.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fourth is probably the weakest in my opinion, being a blog, next to the first one which, as you say, looks like marketing. But regarding the length of the third, PC Gamer UK, which is the magazine I read, doesn't give a lot of professionally published games more than that few paragraphs. When it comes to reviews from websites that aren't blogs or fansites, I'm inclined to consider their opinion citeable unless someone comes up with a good reason why we shouldn't - and no-one did that here. --Sam Blanning 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Because of the wording in the nomination and many of the delete votes, many keep voters didn't address WP:WEB concerns. Many specifically said that was a front and they believed this was up for deletion because of a content dispute. It's very questionable whether the web policy even applies to online games. I'd say re-list with administator ruling up front about which policies apply, then let people argue it based on that. Ace of Sevens 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, a valid interpretation of the debate. The massively disrupted debate doesn't help. I think we should wait a while and maybe try again, perhaps with an independent editor starting a new article in userspace. Just zis Guy you know? 20:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I cannot believe you are even taking this seriously. Graal unixmad has attempted to save his one and only advertisment from being deleted thru all channels (and finally here). Why? Because Cyberjourners is too stingy to pay for real advertising. The article was written in such a way that would have made Daniel Brandt proud of the failings of Misplaced Pages. Then, the saga developed when users attempted to make the article more NPOV, and the Graal administration blocked all attempts. Then came the "harrasing phone calls by the crazy frenchman" to the Wikimedia Foundation, emphasising Graal Online's feverish wish for their advertisment not to be removed. Then, when finally justice was done, and Graal Online couldn't win against the Misplaced Pages community, they come crying to you guys on the deletion review. Seriously, they resist anything that tarnishes their good name, and as Misplaced Pages policy says, ] is crucial. Also, last time I checked, WP:NOT stated that "Misplaced Pages is not an advertisment". Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and to clear up source three above, which was the only one with any credibility: It is, in essence, a blog, as any can "Submit your company's own news/press". Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • One more thing: Benford's law of controversy. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Last one for now, promise. I notice Unixmad above stated that "A private mediation was started but this mediation was badly managed and the mediator was then involved in a private war with pro-GraalOnline people and decided that the article should be deleted, that's how the request for deletion was started." As the mediator, I'd like to clear a few things up. You agreed to sign the mediation and the stipulating terms that the "non-cited" material would stay for a period of 7 days and then removed if it wasn't sourced. You broke this by removing it earlier, hence the AfD for obstruction of NPOV and the failings on WP:WEB. You also claim it was "badly-managed". If you can't explain how, I am going to have your head for repeated personal attacks. I was neutral till you started screwing around with the proposed solutions (which you signed and agreed to). After your breach of agreement, I became increasingly hostile with your attitude towards my mediation, which invariably led to me believing the sources that you are an individual that is messed up in the head, and with massive people-skills problems to sort out. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If wiki deemed the Graalonline article to be nothing but an advertisement, it could have been tagged so that the article could have been modified. I cannot believe that there are so many closed eyes as to what is going on here, but I guess the wiki only cares about the wiki, which is understandable I guess. The fact is that no one ever had a chance to do anything with the article after this war started with these few people who were angry at the Graal administration. It was never about keeping critisism out of the article. It was always about keeping the UGCC's, and its members unsourced flaming out of the article, the article could have been cleaned up, and sourced I believe, but some refused to keep that one section out of the article, which they could not source appropriately. Look at this, you have this article that has been on the wiki for years with no problem, then all of a sudden you have this edit war going on, and you look at the edits and you see UGCC linked many times throughout one section, what is up with that? The Graal administration even tried to make small edits to the article to make corrections, and it was always removed in the edit wars. Now, I agree the edit war was not a good idea. On one hand, you have a business owner trying to protect his business, and on the other hand, you have a few people trying to destroy it with bull crap from a few people. The article could probably have a sourced critisism section if people would stop letting their anger and revenge fuel their actions. If members of Graalonline do not follow rules, they will be punished for it, that is the way it is. Going to a place such as the wiki to do something fueled by anger because of this is wrong, and that is what is done here. If you cannot see this, by looking at all the long converstions, and comments, and by the edit wars, then there is nothing more to be said...--Moon Goddess 13:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi there, it'd be nice if you would stop blaming a group of people because some of their actions. That'd be like me blaming all older women because one decided to rear end me today. Would you like that? Me insulting your age and calling all older women incompetent fools? Try to keep the slander to a civil point. The UGCC is now part of the game, deal with it. If there is going to be a wiki article then there is going to be mention of the UGCC. Thanks for your time, and I hope you have a great night. --Greg Raymond 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A couple of people is not all of the UGCC. The fact that (3 people I think) were trying to advertise the UGCC in the critisism section was my biggest problem to begin with. The link was added like 5-6 or more times within one section, as well as added to 2 other sections besides that. It only needed to be in one section, the external link section, which is what it is, and the rest of the critisism section either sourced, or removed. That seems like the way the wiki is suppose to work? --Moon Goddess 13:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again Moon Goddess, you are getting off topic and basing your conclusions off simple opinons and assumptions. "It was never about keeping critisism out of the article. It was always about keeping the UGCC's, and its members unsourced flaming out of the article, the article could have been cleaned up, and sourced I believe, but some refused to keep that one section out of the article, which they could not source appropriately." If you read that again the "the article could have been cleaned up, and sourced I BELIEVE" is just an opinion. This is not about what you think this is about what everyone agrees on, and just because YOU THINK it can be sourced by a few blogs and links to advertisement websites doesn't mean it's UGCC fault for doing this. Graal Online Misplaced Pages was unnoticed and others tried to improve it and change it which is how a wiki works, but ironically the administration stepped in and disagreed with it's own players about a subtle issue that does exist within the game. I do agree that it could've been cleaned up, but that has nothing to do with this, if you are going to have a wikipedia article you better have sources to back up such claims as why the game is like it is. You can't expect to change it to whatever you want and have everyone agree with you, there is a common ground here and it does exist for some kind of agreement but you refuse to even look at the other perspective of the issue and what we are trying to say. You continue to say the UGCC is filled with trash and people who are just banned which is generalizing. The UGCC has also been compared to terrorists as some kind of "bad" association that happens to support your game. It's offensive that you keep bringing up such arguments like this and expect us to understand what you are saying. What I'm trying to say is, stop bringing off-topic material to this conversation and to any conversation that revolved around the Graal Online Misplaced Pages. The UGCC exists just as much as Graal does and is just as citable, but remember Graal Online does not own wikipedia, they control what goes here and they have rules, if you don't follow them then it will be deleted. To call a system corrupt for doing this is your fault and does not help what you are supporting which seems to just make this area a simple advertisement. --Brandon Mitchell 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
So I should just be quiet because I don't agree with you? Correct me if I am wrong, but this section is suppose to be for people who disagree with the decision, and voicing it? Also, I dont believe I ever used the word "corrupt" anywhere. I dont feel some peoples actions were right, and I have the right to voice it. I also am not supporting an article for advertisement. I am supporting what I believe to be right, and I want to see the aerticle remain, sourced. Do you realize that almost everything connected to Graalonline on the wiki is now threatened to be deleted? Nothing I have said is off-topic, and I have not broken any wiki rules that I know of. --Moon Goddess 13:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you should stay on topic of the deletion review and stop generalizing everyone on the UGCC to being evil. That's not even a significant argument for any of this, you claim as if 2 people came and changed something on the GO wikipedia article to just be annoying and now you claim those 2 people to be a part of a forum and connect them to being evil, trash and banned players (this is not just 2 people who are arguing here). I don't know how many times i've heard the same thing brought up in this whole argument, but this is how the wikipedia system works. You're not going to like everything you see on it, and I still so no legitimate reasons on your side for getting rid of everything that was added. You keep bringing up forum issues to wikipedia, that is completely off-topic. The real topic is how can you possible cite something on an online encyclopedia when it has no references whatsoever? We are not talking about submitted content to mmorpg.com, we are talking about REAL references and journalism content. The article has been deleted, but in the future can be recreated and maybe by then Graal might meet the rules of having its own wikipedia article. Provoke a substantial argument rather than "I don't agree with this!" because the other side has a very strong argument compared to this. Stand up for what you feel yes, but bring up valid points for now on and stop bringing extremely inaccurate numbers (the 50,000 players crap, yes I know you didn't say it) because once again it has nothing to do. The article plain out simple was not citable, I don't see how you can argue that. --Brandon Mitchell 06:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete If a typical town with population 1,800 satisfies the notability criteria, why doesn't a typical MMORPG with population 50,000? And just because the article has long been POV doesn't mean that it will never be cleaned up to NPOV, or that it doesn't nevertheless contain useful information. Finally, the fact that debate about an article is less-than-civilized says nothing about the merit of the article itself. NeonMerlin 01:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You actually believe it has a "population" of 50k? I surveyed 20 people on the GraalOnline forums via PM's, and the average number of accounts owned by each person was 5.62, and I guess that considering the massive fall in populrity of GraalOnline, most of the accounts (I'm estimating 50%+ are inactive.
  • Hate to bud in, but here is my 2 cents towards this... Graal Online is simply an online game and is not a town. A town is more notable because it actually exists on this planet and you can find so many resources on information for housing/land/restaurants in that area, so their wikipedia article could easily have more sources and be IMPROVED. As for Graal Online, 50,000 accounts might certainly have been made, but once again this is not a town and people come and they go CONSTANTLY everyday. I've had previous websites with over 100,000 accounts made and they still don't meet the standards of wikipedia (Yes I've had them removed by wikipedia) and I completely understand the rulings of them. Graal online certainly does not have 50,000 active members in it's community. That's like saying the town you mentioned has a total of 50,000 people but only 1,800 live there. The official forums only have 5,000 and way more than half of those are inactive (there is actually a setting in vb board that allows the active member amount to be noticed by public so maybe they should do that for a more precise answer). As for the graal deletion ruling, I agree with it because there is no legitimate standing point for each side. A wikipedia article is not an advertising tool and to sit here and fight around if an online game should be notable is getting ridiculous as there are many other important things out there to worry about rather than a SMALL MMORPG game. The links above are barely even worth mentioning. The first one MMORPG has reviews by players and if you really want that to be a reference then you could use examples of what the players are saying about the game and the overall score, it's obvious advertising. The others are not professional reviews of the game, they sound like a blogger writing about them. If that is the case then anyone can go and make a website and write about something and claim it as a citable reference. Graal Online exists of course, but once again just because it exists doesn't mean it should have a wikipedia article. As for the points and claims of "This whole thing started over 2 people" that is completely false. There is a whole forum of people who disagree and would like to see a common base between the 2 sides and improve the article and mention issues that do exist. --Brandon Mitchell 8:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And to further state, Unixmad's claim of 50,000 is RIDICULOUS, exaggerated, and even to the point where it's a lie. A point in which he has made over and over again despite proof to show otherwise. Why keep making this statement? The most players ever on Era was 261. If there really were 50,000 active members, that number would be significantly higher.--Kuribo 04:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Most of unixmad's claims are entirely baseless and uncitable, and actually most of those searches for Graal on google take you to scholarly articles about the Holy Grail or are copies of the same site, and to say GraalOnline has over 300,000 players is also so laughable it need not even be debated. He had a chance to have the article become WP:WEB WP:NPOV and WP:NOT but instead blatantly defied the mediation he signed and threatened wikipedia over the phone, if he wants an article on Misplaced Pages he has alot of work to do on fairness and following Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines. Vipercat 11:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion I voted "Keep" in the AFD, but really, Graal is on the fringe of what I consider "notable", and considering that it has fallen in popularity in recent years, that is unlikely to change. Also, since there is already a graal wiki, it's not like the information is being lost from the public eye forever. Of course, notability is always subject to change, and if it does, then the article can be rewritten.
HOWEVER, if a new article on GraalOnline is written, I would fully expect that it should be written by someone outside of the GO community. Which it would, if GO achieved the required notability. And, once written, I hope that the majority of the editing would not be done by that community. My only wish is that the article had not been protected from editing during the AFD - it would have given all sides a final chance to attempt to write a well-sourced article. When the article is up for deletion, there's no harm in risking some vandalism if it gives the editors a chance to clean up the article in good faith. Unfortunately, the community has already demonstrated a complete inability to "play nicely" in these discussions, to put it lightly. The best thing that could have been done with the situation was to step back and let others, not affiliated with the dispute, handle the article; if the fear was that nobody else was interested in cleaning the article, then the article probably warranted deletion. JoshWook 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to make some things clear. I am not arguing against having a critisism section within the Graalonline article. I am however, against having a critisism section within the Graalonline article, that has a lot of baseless, unsourced flames against the Graal administration. I am also against someone batently advertising their site throughout a certain section. This whole arguement has been about the critisism section, or at least started with the critisism section, when a few members of the UGCC decided they wanted their link in the article because they were not allowed to link it on the Graalonline forums, which would have been fine if they had done it appropriately, which they did not (one link in the external link section is all that was needed, just like all other external links). I am also not saying that everyone who is a member of the UGCC are bad, they are not, but the fact remained that it was not appropriate to be linked to a forum geared towards children. Should not have been a big deal, but apparently it was.

Everyone can argue the why's and whatever, all day long, but it doesn't even matter. the fact is, the article is gone, and I would like to see an article here, done right. If that isn't possible, then so be it. I am tired of arguing about it, and having my points misunderstood by those who know nothing about Graal, or to have my points turned into something they are not by members of Graalonline that oppose what I am saying, or just do not understand what I am saying.
There are so many misunderstandings, and so many things within all of these pages of arguements that were taken the wrong way, and so many things said out of anger, that it makes me sick, but in the end, none of it even matters, all of it was a waste of time and energy.
A big problem that I have seen, is some of our lack of knowledge of how the wiki does things (myself included), which caused a great rift in the arguement.
I also think that implementing private phone conversations (if there were any) between wiki staff and members into the arguement was totally wrong. I'm not sure where or when it was thrown into the arguement, or by whom, but it was very unprofessional, as was some other comments, and such. Wiki staff should be able to keep a level head in situations like this, and not appear to take sides. I also wonder why a non-wiki staff member mediated this case. Is this normal practice of the wiki? In my opinion, the mediator was very one sided (not meaning to bash anyone, just stating things as I see them).
Anyway, I doubt I even cleared anything up with this, but I tried. Take it as you wish... My only hope is that if the article is to remain deleted, that it can be recreated at a later time, as for any more arguing on this? I really have nothing more to add, so I will just wait and watch, and not post anymore of my apparently off-topic stuff.--Moon Goddess 14:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, MoonGoddess, your objection to the content on the UGCC is totally inappropriate. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and for you to judge material based on the idea that children might somehow stumble on the Misplaced Pages article for GraalOnline and fall into a pit of desolation known as the UGCC is fairly ridiculous. If you have a complaint about possibly inappropriate material on Misplaced Pages, you should also perhaps seek to censor other articles as well. Clearly, there are many articles on here that young children probably "shouldn't" read, but it's not Misplaced Pages's responsibility to monitor this, nor is it any user's responsibility to monitor this.

Di4gram 19:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood everything that I typed. I don't care about inappropriate material on the wiki, and I know there are articles here such as you mentioned, I have even read some of them, and some are quite good with a lot of good information. That has nothing to do with anything that I said at all, and it has nothing to do with the Graal article, or what I was saying. I never even said that the link to the UGCC shouldn't even be included, I said it should be in the external links section. Nothing you just said applies to what I said at all. the wiki is not geared towards children, so why would I care what is here? --Moon Goddess 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying about the UGCC being in the external links section and not in the Communication Center section, Moon Goddess, and that COULD have been avoided, had it not turned into an edit war between Unixmad, Di4gram, and Warcaptain. The fact is, all sides should've taken a break from the article (which I did suggest, but my suggestion was ignored) and/or come up with an agreement. You say you'd like to see an article "done right." Well, let me bring up a piece of history here. The article underwent mediation, and in the end, the mediation decision was to allow any criticism in the Criticism section, if it was properly sourced, to stay after 7 days. Any criticism unproperly sourced would have been removed. Unixmad, however, phoned one of Misplaced Pages's offices, apparently threatened to sue, and therefore the criticism section was removed. He violated the mediation, which he signed. I know you certainly aren't here to speak for the behalf of Unixmad, but I hope you can at least see how because of GraalOnline's management and some of those disatisfied with the game, that the article was not "done right." You seem to solely put the blame on the UGCC. Also, let's not forget immaturity struck the talk page when Stefan Knorr kept changing the Minor Changes section on the talk page to those along the lines of "Warcaptains personal section", "I am Warcaptain, I am so great", etc.
As far as I can tell, we are no longer arguing about the Criticism section, but whether this game is notable enough to even HAVE an article. Unixmad has tried to show us examples of account numbers, but you can't fool anyone with an outrageous claim such as 50,000 active members. --Kuribo 02:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I understand what you are saying. I simply do not feel like arguing about this anymore, as I have put all the input I have to say in all these pages. I just hope that eventually everyone will calm down enough so that an article can be made, if it is possible...if it can be sourced. Some people will understand what I have tried to say about the UGCC (not so much the UGCC as a whole, but a few of its members), some will not, and I know that is not even the issue now, but it is a big reason as to why this all started. It's over now, and there is no changing what has already happened. In all fairness, I have seen some effort lately being made to make the UGCC a better forum (until they banned me today that is). --Moon Goddess 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log

Out of process deletion of the above article by Freakofnurture. I can't see any valid reason for deletion, and it wasn't listed at WP:RFD. It was also a soft redirect, so it didn't have the normal problem that cross-namespaces have. --Hetar 04:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)