Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armed Coalition Forces of the Internets


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete discounting new users, nn-group anyways. Jaranda wat's sup 06:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Armed Coalition Forces of the Internets
Group receives only 3 Google hits, and their homepage isn't even listed on alexa. The article tries pretty hard to establish notability, otherwise I would've tagged it for speedy. tmopkisn tlka 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that's up to the powers that be, I won't argue back or forth. If it's deleted however, I suppose there should also be a deletion for the redirect from [ACFI]. Notice, however, that when this is written, it is in fact listed on alexa from what I can see. :)
 * My bad, I meant that alexa held no data on the website, which would make it appear that it isn't at all notable. tmopkisn tlka 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well... in case, say, the alleged ACFI did step ashore in the area Ladonia in some way, and it at least made local headlines, would that make the article worthy of existence, by the principle that it might not be interesting to everyone in the world, but to at least a number of people (Ladonia is a popular subject among artists not only in Sweden, and happenings involving it would create interest - same definately goes for stuff involving the Pirate Bay)? Bare also in mind that the concept is quite new. //Thaum
 * Well, I'd say it'd be notable if it made some local newspapers, and you could cite them in the article, but everyone's opinion of what is or isn't notable varies. It actually sounds quite interesting to me, but as of now there are only 3 places that even mention it online, and none that I've heard of before. tmopkisn tlka 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Pirate Bay you prolly heard about :) Not trying to cause a fuzz or anything, just arguing for my article. :)
 * Delete - About as nn as they come. Stev0 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Keep" - its important to get an info who it is that threatens Ladonia! And Ladonia has a very well written article about who they are. You don't delete the entry of USA when on the entry of IRAN there is a paragraph that says USA is threatening Iran with war! (signed by an civilian happiely not affected of any of the Ladonian hostilites) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.166.127 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 06:14:55
 * Above comment posted by IP who's only edit thusfar was to this page, just so we all know. tmopkisn tlka 08:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * does the fact that the IP is dynamic and that i'm not signing up made my voice/opinion less valueable? In fact I (the Individual User) have contributed on more then one page in the german wikipedia and on some pages in the english one. i had the impression that every voice/opinion has the same weight in a democratic medium like the wikipedia?! (just so we all know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.166.127 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 08:34:13
 * Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy. Uncle G 12:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Keep" - as a member of the ACFI (Yes, you can see my IP now, I know) - I would like to state that we are a _newly founded_ group and we are continuing our work against the people who threaten the Internets. We can of course not reach high marks in google in just a couple of days. Wikipedia was just fast to actually learn about us. We will stay around and do more work, so this article should be kept in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.20.230 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 09:03:14
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Things only belong here if articles about them have been written, published, checked, peer-reviewed, and absorbed into the corpus of human knowledge outside of Wikipedia.  See our No original research policy.  The place for a primary source, never-before-published description and history of a new micronation is a magazine, a newspaper, a book, a journal article, or some other web site, not this one.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  Uncle G 00:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggest an addition that this conflict might be concidered a pop-cultural one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaum1el (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 09:11:01
 * Delete The article does not comply with Wikipedia's high standards for quality. Additionally it is riddled with original research and/or is cited by unreliable sources. There is not enough useful or verified information to justify keeping this article. If someone is willing to do an extensive cleanup of the article, that would be great. Until then, it is best to delete the article as to avoid the spread of misinformation. --Epsilonsa 09:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * May I just pause you for a second here. Wikipedia's "High standard of quality" is about as solid as a dog turd in a washing machine. The Wiki is full of complete rubbish, implausible opinions based on speculation, and worst of all, utter lies generally being called direct facts by nitwits who know nothing. The Wiki has been ridiculed from lands a far for having articles pertaining to many many subjects that are just downright wrong, and even one of the top blokes originally part of the creation of the Wiki has admitted it has serious flaws as far as factual truth go. I decided to see if I could get away with writting rubbish, so I edited an article on here to prove a point back in May, with complete gibberish cooked up in one minute, and it has yet to be removed. In fact I expect some poor bastard probably uses the information on a daily basis to prove his or her own points, and little do they know it is made up by me. Just think, if I can do it, millions of others can. And have. So, before you go crapping out this rubbish about this article not being in keeping with the Wiki's high quality standards, might I suggest you take a look at every other page on the Wiki, because chances are 9 times out fo 10 if you knew what the hell you were going on about you'd realise this entire site is a complete farce. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.168.197 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-27 10:33:04
 * Comment If this isn't an argument for deletion, I don't know what is. Stev0 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I must actually give an opinion here, even if I orginitaed this article and all flaws in it should be mine (no contribs have been made to it as of yet): So Wiki is ridiculed for lack of accuracy and correctness and so on. No matter if this is true or not, the best way to counter such things, is to clean up the bad seeds and water the good ones, wouldn't you agree? If this is a completey non-sensical article, as some seem to believe, and if it does not reach up to the policies of Wiki, no matter what individuals think of these policies, this should be adhered to, and this everyone making a login on wiki agreed to comply to from the get-go. Better to improve a bad article, than to maintain it in a sad shape just to protest the site's policies if they are not to one's satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaum1el (talk • contribs)
 * I suppose you did not detect the irony of me giving a well tailored reason for deleting this ridiculously low quality article. I know I laughed when I wrote it. I either overestimated your sense of humor or overestimated the amount of humor others would find in my response. In either case, the argument is as valid as it is funny (not saying much, apparently), and your article has got to be deleted. Tough break, son. Maybe try not to berate the merits of your own article next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsilonsa (talk • contribs) ¨
 * Think you got something wrong here. I created the article, and if people seriously want to take it away, please do. I will hardly be upset about the thing, as I have not been upset about someone giving a motivation for wanting the deletion, humorous or not. If it has to go it has to go. However, you must have confused me with the unsigned long argument upstairs. As you might notice I argued against the rant about the Wiki policies on deletion, claiming that if it doesn't meet the Wiki standards it must of course go. ;)--Thaum1el 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did get something wrong. Point taken. --Epsilonsa 08:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Delete it twice just to make sure it stays dead. And don't forget to delete the ACFI redirect page too. wikipediatrix 14:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Keep" - I say we definitely keep this page, I know the organization is new - but that does not mean that they cannot deserve a page on wikipedia. People need to know what is happening on the internet - and in Sweden! --Mailerdaemon 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Keep it!" a new iternet fenomena that may grow wild and more crazy! give the people time ot add more reliable info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpunk666 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, you should check your spelling if you want to have your opinions taken seriously. Stev0 02:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.