Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem (1st nomination)

General Mayhem was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 NO CONSENSUS

personally i think this page should probably go up for VfD. Its not really "encyclopedic" material, and as the article itself says the site has been entirely deleted once before. Does it have the longevity necessary to make it worthy of inclusion? If this article had been posted by one of the founders of the board it would have been deleted already as Fancruft/Non-Notable/Vanity. Plus this heading would probably be better spent on General Mayhem the band. Alkivar 02:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * has led to nothing but vandalism, including vandalism of its VfD page, all the more reason to get rid of it. Alkivar 21:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we'll delete John Kerry and George W. Bush as well. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o
 * Except that the entire point to General Mayhem is vandalism, that is not the purpose for John Kerry or George W. Bush. Alkivar 01:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * So then Ralph Nader. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

has also gone through a speedy delete at Genmay. VfD for Genmay is Here
 * Note, the speedy delete was a previous version, this was not simply reposted content. The creation of this article despite speedy deletions was previously discussed.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o
 * mentioned because previous entry was deleted for the SAME REASONS its listed here now. Alkivar 01:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * keep. Seems a fair enough article -- William M. Connolley 22:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC).
 * Keep. Since when do we delete articles just because they are prone to vandalism? The old vote has no bearing, because the current article is far superior to the old.  -- Netoholic @ 22:28, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, the creating of this entry was an excellent show of goodwill from seveal people including registered Wikipedians and anonymous contributors. I don't think this article would be delted as "fancruft/nonnotable/vanity" regardlesss of who posted it, because it is generally a good encyclopedic article about a popular website.   To be honest, this should never have appeared on VfD.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o
 * Delete. Garbage that brings us nothing but vandalism whenever its presence is made aware to the site's low-life contributors (who make Slashdot look good). Ambi 00:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: I have no doubt that some folks really liked it. I have no doubt people went there.  The question is whether it is just a board or not.  It seems like it to me.  To me, it looks like a collection of folks, a club.  Would we include a club with 200 people?  I think we'd ask what it did to be notable, and I don't see this having achieved that.  Other than vandalizing and talking about itself, I haven't seen evidence that this group of people has done anything.  I'm sure it was fun, but I'm not sure it was notable. Geogre 01:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why should we keep articles on websites that are notable for positive things but delete those that are notable for negative things, like vandalism? This is a very POV thing you are suggesting. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Are they? That was my point, Anthony.  I would support keeping the Molochan Liberation Army.  I readily admit that infamy is fame.  I just don't think that General Mayhem is there.  You have to be in an extremely rarefied community to have heard of it in any form.  The fact that it's the atmosphere that many Wikipedians inhabit is neither here nor there.  Like "leet," the number of people really who encounter this is tiny, and only a small fraction of those who hit "leet" will hit the "legends of the Internet," and only a small percentage of those would have come across this particular group of particular people.  I thought our Venn diagram was getting a bit too small. Geogre 02:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If the obscure Wikipedia articles tend to be on topics that aren't obscure to people who read Wikipedia, is that a bad thing? It sounds useful and natural to me. Factitious 09:11, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I now understand what you were saying. (I was thrown of by "we'd ask what it did to be notable").  Thanks for clarifying.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vandal magnet, trollvertisement, otherwise entirely useless. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "Vandal magnet" So far there have been only three "runs" of vandalism since this article was created on Sep 10. All three times, the problems were dealt with very quickly because many people here watch this article for trouble. We know what too look for, and where on the forums threads appear talking about Wikipedia.  Yes, some people do vandalise, but other members have joined WP and contributed great edits.  "trollvertisement" - I don't know even what that means. this is no GNAA, and they still have an article. "entirely useless" - What an un-Wikipedia thing to say.  We have 380,000 articles here and I guarantee the vast majority are "entirely useless" to any one person.  "Non-notability" is still not a valid reason according to the deletion policies. -- Netoholic @ 05:45, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Geogre said. Dysprosia 08:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Not notability is a valid reason to delete, as to be encyclopedic, both a topic and an article must be encyclopedic, and notability is a prerequisite to an encyclopedic topic. --Improv 16:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You know what, I checked our article about Encyclopedia and it gives no mention that a subject's notability is a criteria for inclusion. Even if I were to agree with you that the GenMay site is non-notable, that would still not be a reason to delete it. Editors of paper encyclopedias have to decide what to include for space reasons. The Wikimedia Foundation has told us that isn't a problem, and I trust that.  If you'd like to write up some guidelines, ala Criteria for inclusion of biographies for websites, then do so.  Let's not fight this fight each and every time a popular website is nominated here. -- Netoholic @ 15:53, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't expect a leader of a corporation to necessarily come to our article on corporations to find out what would be considered the most appropriate way to run one. Similarly, the entry for encyclopedia here is not the source of our juris. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is not a junkyard. There are many pieces of information that do not fit into the traditional role of an encyclopedia, whether because they belong in some other type of collection of information (e.g. a family tree), they are excessively local (and so belong in a more area-specific collection of information, perhaps on another wiki), or they otherwise fall widely out of the scope of encyclopedias. We are not a paper encyclopedia, true, and so we do have somewhat broader scope than they do, but we are also still an encyclopedia, and that involves making judgement calls as to what is encyclopedic and what is not. You may notice, reviewing my VfD votes and similar, that I am neither as deletionist as many other self-described deletionists, and that there are some general rules you might use to determine how I will vote on a given article. I occasionally have voted keep on articles that have been deleted. Occasionally, like with this article, it's not so much a rule as a judgement call -- do I think the board does something unique, has sufficient prominence, or has interesting historical events attached to it? My judgement is that this site does not. I, as always, may be wrong (meaning that if I had a broader perspective on these criteria, I would vote the other way), and so I trust and hope that the collective decision is equitable and will self-correct eventually if wrong. Judgement calls are part of life though, and I'm comfortable making them. Sorry for the essay. --Improv 21:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it isn't notable, though? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indrian 20:47, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but condense. 12 million messages (little or no useful content, from my POV). An alexa rank of 25,000. Notable by sheer size. &mdash; David Remahl 11:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Extremely popular website. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Wikipedia is not paper. --Farside 19:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's clearly notable enough, so where's the reason for deletion? --Tmh 08:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The reason given is "Fancruft/Non-Notable/Vanity", three words which have little meaning and certainly no agreement upon whether or not they are valid reasons for deletion. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable, could use wikifying.  Pages certainly shouldn't be deleted for being vandalized. (Yes, I know that wasn't the only reason it was nominated here.)  An article about General Mayhem, the band, sounds good, and could be done with standard disambiguation methods.  I'm not really qualified to write it, though. Factitious 09:11, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Alexa Ranking ZaQ 01:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.