Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpsie


 * 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 per Snow. PeaceNT 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Corpsie

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I prod'd this the other day and someone improved it. I still don't think the subject is wiki worthy. Postcard Cathy 16:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

--

I have to disagree - we have a busy forum, and many people (including people not on the forum) ask 'what is Corpsie all about' so a Wiki entry is valid. I made the point NOT to advertise either the forum or anything to do with it so to avoid being accused of spamming. There are a LOT less reputable entries then our simple Corpsie. koopa42


 * Then those too should go because they must be pretty lame. Postcard Cathy 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One reference I can give you - Retro Gamer magazine, issue 19, in an article on the Retro Ball event held in the UK. The editor used a picture of Corpsie. Merman 1974


 * Then that belongs in the article and put the reference in context. This way those that know about those things can decide if it is an important enough source.

--

I have to disagree too. The forum IS a hive of activity, with people asking 'who's Corpsie?' all the while. Even having several appearances in some mainstream gaming magazines, I don't see the problem in having this as a Wiki entry. djmassive


 * Then where are the citations from those magazines? Postcard Cathy 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, c'mon, it's just a running gag from a forum. And not a very big forum at that. No way this is notable enough for Wiki.-- Nydas (Talk) 17:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN in-joke. Information on Wikipedia must pass notability guidelines. Perhaps what you want is a forum-only wiki, or Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable, and devoid of reliable sources.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is exactly the kind of in-group thing a forum would create its own "internal" wiki for, like the one those lovely folks at 4chan seem to have put together. There is no need for it to be on Wikipedia, and it doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:NOTE.  It probably runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:V as well.  --Dynaflow   babble  22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless forumcruft (is this a first?) --Whsitchy 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright guys, looks like we're not gonna get anywhere here. You're obviously set in your mind that this isn't to stay a part of Wikipedia. You may as well just pull it at the next convenient time. Long live the 3rd Reich eh guys? djmassive
 * Ok DJ since you are so upset, then make a MySpace page for the guy and then you won't get pulled for lack of notability unless he is a sex offender!  Really, just because a lot of people ask about something doesn't mean it is wiki worthy.  Postcard Cathy 21:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL - oh yea only a totalitarian decision-making process could possibly elect to trash this cruft. Reinter Eusebeus 13:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete How did this even make it as far as AFD without being being put out of its misery? Adrian   M. H.  16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It was prodded. Said prod got deleted (yay logs!)--Whsitchy 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's the problem with ProD; it really has no teeth. Adrian   M. H.  19:57, 28 May 2007 (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.