Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination)

 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. dbenbenn | talk 02:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Myg0t
Previously VfD'd in August 2004. Has been recreated independently many times since then; these appear to be genuine re-creations and not re-creation vandalism. Has been repeatedly speedy-deleted as "deleteagain" of previously VfD'd, but perhaps enough time has passed to re-examine the issue. If GNAA is worthy of inclusion, then perhaps myg0t is also worthy. No vote. -- Curps 21:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A (non-duplicate) page Mygot has now been created, and should be considered along with this page. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 17:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or Speedy as re-creation of validly VfDed article. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again.  -Sean Curtin
 * Keep. Rhobite 20:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * These guys are very well-known (and hated) by gamers. They should be represented here.. who cares about the results of previous VfD debates? 50,000 Google hits. Rhobite 21:25, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and it really should be speedied. Xezbeth  21:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Xezbeth --Neigel von Teighen 21:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and consider potential ways to block its subsequent recreation. (I did once try making the title a redirect to What Wikipedia is not as a really stupid experiment; needless to say, it lasted barely a few minutes before another admin deleted it.) Bearcat 06:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd never thought I would be defending an article about this group, as they truly are a sad bunch, but they do have gained notability (notoriety?) in the online gaming scene as one of the more extreme and persistent examples of a cheating, harrassment and trolling "clan". They also have been going for years now, so it's not a one-hit wonder. And finally, from the Deletion policy: If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!. --Plek 11:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anyone who uses wikipedia uses the internet. A fair percentage of them have been affected by myg0t in one way or another, especially those who game. There is no reason to take this def off.
 * Unsigned vote by 65.41.21.212 (talk &middot; contributions). User's second edit. --Plek 05:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and 65.41.21.212's other edit was adding a Myg0t term to Internet slang. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 12:54, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless shown notability, delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. An interesting group. The Recycling Troll 23:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No more notable now than they were than before.  Should be speedy deleted as a recreation of a previously VfD'd article.  RickK 00:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself speedy-deleted it once before as a re-creation. However, there appear to have been multiple independent re-creations (if you look at the previously deleted versions, each has a fairly different wording and writing style), by people apparently unaware of the previous VfD's and speedy deletions.  So I erred on the side of caution and renominated for VfD instead of speedying.  In effect, this could be considered a Vote_for_undeletion, except with the twist that the article currently exists since someone re-created it. Plek makes an interesting point citing Deletion policy... I wasn't aware of this earlier. -- Curps 01:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a note that if this is kept, someone is going to need to watch it constantly since it'll be a big target for vandalism and POV edits. It may be a good idea to think of a possible Merge and Redirect with a related article.--Paul Soth 01:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, again. Nastiness does not equate to non-noteworthiness. Denni &#9775; 02:35, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trollvertisement. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Probable vanity, as Xdavexxx hasn't edited anything besides the article. Doesn't seem like much can be said about the subject. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep --SPUI (talk) 06:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Don't need an article for every group of bored teenagers. &#9999; Oven Fresh  ²  02:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutralitytalk 21:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep myg0t are significant, I myself used Wiki to try and find who they are. Article needs a rewrite though. --Intimidated 02:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect against recreation; trollvertisement. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:54, Mar 19, 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.