Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of Existence (talker)


 * 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 No Consensus--KEEP.  Voice of All T 04:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Planes of Existence (talker)

 * Planes of existence (chat site) was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-22. The result of the discussion was "an eye-bleeding barrage of text. But it looks like keep is the verdict.".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/Planes of existence (chat site).

Many references quoted in this article are nothing but hearsay and could be considered slanderous. The allegations are damaging the reputation of a successful chat room and its owner. The owner of the chatroom has personally denied the allegations, and since these "references" are nothing but rumors, speculations, allegations, and hearsay, this entry can hardly be considered as being wikipedia-worthy. 68.83.85.175 23:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't really know how deletions work on wikipedia, not being a regular user but this article was pointed out to me by someone who used to know me on PoE as my sceen name is mentioned in the article.  I do take exception to the allegations that involve me as they are untrue.  Xerya. one of the original founders, claimed to have seen logs on the talker listing people's names and addresses, in a similar way to Whisper's claims from 2 years earlier on Lo Riveiro.  In spite of the fact that I edited this in the main article to the truth that I have never claimed to have seen logs of the talker listing people's names and addresses, this allegation has returned.  I never have and quite frankly, I wouldn't have been interested to.  I definitely wasn't an original founder.  One of the first users, yes.  Founder, no.  If there were allegations that I submitted the evidence that blackmail was happening, I must have done it in my sleep.  I wasn't even aware of allegations of blackmail and I definitely did not submit any evidence.  As for the questions of my loyalty - that is all mere speculation and as for the claim that Virus helped me with my suicide attempt - unless Virus is unbeknown to me, my mother, that is also untrue.  I'm very disturbed that such lies can masquerade as fact and while I have invited the author of this article to actually find out truths on the discussion page instead of making up lies, no requests for truth have been forthcoming.  I certainly do not enjoy being portrayed in this false light and I honestly did not know about any controversy over zoos, German police, blackmail, kiwi/virus etc. until I read the fiction on this page.  If it happened, it happened without my participation.  Also, the original AFD happened before I knew anything of this so I think it should be reconsidered as there are some blatant untruths in the article - not just about me but I only feel qualified to comment on the issues involving my name ~ Xerya


 * Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Original AFD already addressed these issues.  Nominator is involved in edit war over this page and has been involved in vandalism to prove a point. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I second the deletion. How could anyone call a journal evidence of fact? The rumors and allegations do nothing but spread FUD.  The original owners of the talkers involved were never aware of the article before the first AFD.  Their voices were not heard until now, and the message is clear: stop slandering, stop spreading rumors, and stop using journals as "proof".66.101.11.58 00:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - I haven't looked into its merits myself, but the article was debated for deletion just two weeks ago: Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_22 -Meegs 00:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * delete - the article is full of inaccuracies that were not addressed in the first AFD. those who were targeted by the allegations had no idea of the article until after the first AFD had already been passed.  in their defense, this should be given a fair second chance, and from what i've seen, it should be deleted because i agree that the references sited are simply hearsay and rumor.216.158.57.50 00:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete! - as a crystal palace user, i can vouch for the inaccuracies of the "sources", which could hardly pass as a reliable reference! Hearsay as a reference?!? Blackcat55 01:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep biased, fair enough. - this was nominated and kept less than two weeks ago as Articles_for_deletion/Planes_of_existence_(chat_site).  This is an article content dispute and should be addressed on the talk page and in the article. &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 01:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Jesus. Can we get an expert to come downstairs and sort this all out? Are there any disinterested persons who can understand what this is about?  I'm not voting, but my thought is... Is this the sort of thing that an encyclopedia is for? I mean if it was about how Bohr snubbed Fermi because Einstein found out that Hiesenberg was really Oppenhiemer, then OK. But are any of the people in this article notable? Herostratus 03:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - While this article has issues, if we are to keep the Crystal Palace page, this one needs to be kept as well. The NPOV problems, alleged inaccuracies, etc can all be fixed and, by themselves, do not warrant deletion. -- Shinmawa 06:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Talker, along with Crystal Palace and the other articles proposed by Shinmawa in the Crystal Palace AfD discussion. Tom Lillis 10:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been discussing this with a lot of people over the past few weeks, and especially with the objections/vandalism from the anon IPs, and have decided on some kind of a merge. I have nominated Mamnuts, Ncohafmuta, Lighthouse (chat site), Crossroads (chat site) and Crystal Palace (chat site) for deletion on the basis of being insufficiently notable, and the rest I am merging.  Whilst I am not sure if its really good to keep them all in talker, I think that I could do it, and it might be easier to do that because then it puts things in to better perspective.  As I am close to finishing writing all of the individual components of the articles (Foothills and Resort are the only 2 I haven't really finished), I think that a merge is quite plausible.  I am happy to do that, as I have said all along.  These talkers were notable within the talker community, and had some impact outside of the community.  But since at the present moment in time, talkers themselves basically don't exist anymore, then having individual articles is probably a bit much.  I apologise for this.  However, the 5 main controversial elements, on each of Foothills, Surfers, lintilla, CP and PoE I am going to keep, because they are important issues that need to be included.  Whilst I'd love to have independent sources for them, AFAIK they don't exist, so I will just try to present them as neutrally as possible.  Its impossible to understand the history of talkers without referencing these issues.  Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I created all of these articles other than UNaXcess I have the ability to independently merge all of them in to one article, which I have done, in merging them all in to talker. Please have a look to see if you think that that looks okay.  I have also speedy deleted Crossroads (chat site), Ncohafmuta and Lighthouse (chat site) on the basis of non-notoriety.  I am unsure whether Crystal Palace (chat site) meets the criteria for speedy deletion.  4 days ago it would have, as I was the only editor, but since the recently created anon users/vandals have come, there may be a technicality preventing it.  After consideration, I agree that having an article purely to talk about controversies is inappropriate.  It clearly doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion (having 5,000 regular users) and hence can't be kept in its own right.  As discussed, the only 3 that do meet that criteria are Surfers (talker), Resort (talker) and Foothills (talker), no others.  However, I have now merged them all in to talker anyway, just to make things easier.  As I have included all relevant information in talker already, I am happy for this page to merely say REDIRECT talker.  Again, there is a technicality that I may not have sole rights to do this, but since there has been 0 contributions from the other editors (only removing/disruption), I would suggest that it still counts, and that I can do a REDIRECT.  I trust that this would remove any controversies.  Please have a look at talker and tell me what you think of how it looks now. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 23:33, 6 December 2005 (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.