Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Wikipedia

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Channel Wikipedia
More non-notability from User:Aghost. --W(t) 02:47, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity article on irc channel begun "24 May 2005". Double Blue  (Talk) 03:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Vanity article that's supposed to be an ad, I think. Self-referential to Wikipedia and the user. Geogre 03:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i have removed factual information about the efnet channel's foundation due to suspicion of vantiy. It is not self referential to the wikipedia as it is an article about irc chat rooms. Aghost 04:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * comment i intentionally made this article with the /temp postfix in order to avoid this nonsense. There is a link to the article in the topic of the new wikipedia channel on efnet irc.  the intent was that users of the channel would collaborativly write the article and then the postfix would be removed.  please see Talk:Channel_Wikipedia.  by continually voting for deletion on my articles rather than editing them, you are moving the discussion to the vfd, leaving me as the only editor of the articles in most cases.  this is completely missing the point of wikipedia.  the freenode channel is very notable, wikipedia even links to it when it's having server problems. Aghost 04:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Aghost, you've had a few articles that have received no VfD attention or if they have, have passed. The lesson you should be getting from this is that starting articles on extremely non-notable things is going to get a VfD now that you have a reputation for starting non-notable articles. I would suggest you be careful for the time being in what you create; make sure it *truly* is notable, and not something founded on Wikipedia yesterday. --Durin 01:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete CryptoDerk 04:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - IRC channels have a high bar to get over to be in Wikipedia, and given Aghost's history of adding articles about things he just made up, I'm not inclined to think this is over that bar. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * comment this stated by a user of channel wikipedia. Aghost 05:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that that only lends credence to his(?) delete vote; it's not often you see someone vote to delete an article about a channel/website/forum/etc. he contributes to. (Also, delete nn irc channels, like this one.) A Man In Black 09:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, subtrivial net-cruft. Everyking 05:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and flog those responsible. &mdash; Phil Welch 05:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The real Channel Wikipedia features Deleteball - where RickK channels John McLaughlin in debates over encyclopedic suitability. ISSUE NUMBER ONE. Is Channel Wikipedia notable or not notable?! - oh, and delete. --FCYTravis 05:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, what? a very confused RickK 22:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guess you never saw the Saturday Night Live parodies of the McLaughlin Group. --FCYTravis 00:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds like fun. lets do efnet vs freenode teams. i have an idea for new rules, if the article is deleted, we both lose. oh, and keep. Aghost 05:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Avoid self-references. Delete. --Slowking Man 05:31, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - both trivial and vanity Tobycat 05:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Right, we need this.  Kelly Martin 05:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again, this seems to be using Wikipedia to suit personal goals. Also, no notability whatsoever. Sarg 13:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. No matter how many bad articles a person creates, there's no justification for personal attacks in the VfD debate. Isaac R 19:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What personal attacks? His history is relevant, and pretending that it isn't is naïve. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 19:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not relevent. We don't judge articles by the person who wrote them, period. Even when a person is creating a lot of bad articles. Especially then, because such articles tend to be so bad, everybody can agree they have to go. So why escalate the personality wars for no purpose? Isaac R 20:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You say "period" like it's an argument. If a person has a history of intentionally inserting non-factual information into Wikipedia, then everything they do is suspect until proven otherwise. It's the part of the behavior that got Michael hard banned two years ago. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 23:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I say "period" because the policies say, "Talk about content, not about people". And it's a good rule. Basing your criticim on who wrote an article damages the community atmosphere. Besides, what's the point? Aghost's writing is so incoherent, you don't have to work hard to get people to vote "Delete". (Which is always the case when somebody feels the need to say "another article from...") Indeed, making it personal actually works in his favor: he's able to justify himself as a persecuted, misunderstood individual. Personal attacks just feed that myth. Isaac R 23:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable. Another article about something created very recently, and virtually automatically fails any notability test. --Durin 01:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.