Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Communist Robots


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Nacon kantari 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Giant Communist Robots
Non-notable guild. Nacon kantari 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep World of Warcraft is a game with 5 million players and this is a very notable group of players. No single guild caused as much debate and contaversy as Giant Communist Robots. I do agree that guilds or clubs usually don't deserve an Wikipedia article, but this is an exception. I was actually suprised when I found out Wikipedia didn't have this article. Titwatcher 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Did it cause any influence or significance outside the gaming community? Numerous things cause "controversy" within small communities, rarely are they worthy of inclusion in a general encyclopedia.--Sean Black 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if it did not... the controversy is understandable by those outside of the gaming community, and opens an important debate that transends the gaming community. Again, I am not a member of this guild, and don't personally know it's members. I came to Wikipedia to FIND information about this issue for a paper on Video games and censorship. No information was found. Titwatcher 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. A brief mention in an online article is certainly not notable.  This article has already been speedied a few times, so speedy again if there is relatively quick consesus. Wickethewok 21:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment what exactly is notability in Wikipedia? I am not even a member of this guild and I heard of them. My intent is to get this article to FA status just to prove how much notable this guild really is. Titwatcher 21:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Being an FA doesn't prove notability, it proves article quality. Lord Bob 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No significance outside the gaming community, not worthy of coverage in a general encyclopedia. Delete.--Sean Black 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is the sort of thing you can create a personal webpage about. Adam Bishop 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Lord Bob 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, G4 and A7. I don't care if he doesn't like that; it falls under those criteria. --Rory096 21:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Criticism of World of Warcraft. There's something similar there about gay/lesbian clans. Do not speedy delete - reposting does not apply, as it was only speedy deleted, and this makes a claim to notability. (I'm assuming that's what your letter-number combos mean.) --SPUI (T - C) 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as per above. I don't think the guild itself is inherently notable, but the controversy around it is. I've never heard even played World of Warcraft but I remember hearing about this from somewhere Masterhomer [[Image:Yin yang.svg|20px|]] 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WoWcruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. "used to be"... "was disbanded"... Not notable and not getting any more notabler. (What? It's a word!) ➨  Я Є  DVERS  21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft Bwithh 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete lol.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 22:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing controversial; the guild was in violation of the game's naming policy, and was treated accordingly. MD87 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Criticism of World of Warcraft per User:SPUI. robchurch | talk 22:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, no. Nuke it. robchurch | talk 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, The main content has already been placed in Video game controversy Nacon kantari  22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WoWCruft.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete article, best not to place content elsewhere. Rather unencyclopedic. It's one thing to have an article about a game. But this is a level or two down from that... -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nuke it to Stonehenge. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge it makes sense to merge this with Criticism of World of Warcraft. Clearly people seem to have a general issue with how Blizzard is handling guilds. Ash Lux 22:36, 28 May 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.