Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sashanan

Sashanan
 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hilarious XD. And TRUE TOO! o_o Sashanan touched me once. ;-; I tried to tell CJayC, but he acted like it was MY fault!!! :runs away crying:


 * Delete-the entire purpose of this entry was to insult a GameFAQs mod. Not only does this have absolutely no basis in fact, but it is also made by some very disgruntled people.  This should be deleted.


 * The only thing Google brings up when you search for "Sashanan" is the GF mod and sites were he has been a member - Delete this useless entry


 * Basically a joke insult page about a well-known Gamefaqs poster. No value whatsoever.204.60.63.109 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Totally without any basis in fact. Just a joke entry designed to be very mean.
 * As funny as it is, it's indeed a joke page that's made up.
 * I propose we preserve this page as a example of "How to design well-made joke articles."
 * I propose that, although there may very well be a "famous" GameFAQs user (if such thing exists) who is aware of the myth, that a definition of such a myth is not inherently "insulting" to anyone who uses this, online. The name is also used (derived from the original Dutch mythology) in Quest for Glory 2, which presumably explains the provenance of the name on such a site. It is hardly appropriate if, for example, someone who uses "Mr Punch" as a username online should complain to Wikipedia about the appalling level of violence associated with such a name, on this site. The value of this article, too, is to educate those who have no idea of such a folklore figure, which seems to number in the threes.


 * I agree with the sentiment that the article should be preserved to educate those who don't know the Dutch mythology. Just because it's some "famous GameFAQs user" took the name Sashanan doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. For instance, "Cthulhu" is a mythological god that many users on message boards take for a username. Cthulhu isn't necessarily a favorable god since he has been rumored to be a "devourer of souls." If someone complained from another internet message board saying that the article on Cthulhu should be removed because it portrays them in a negative light, I highly doubt the artcle would be removed. This is because, just like Sashanan, Cthulhu is a character rooted in mythology and perhaps the user that chose that name should have thought more into it before doing so. In conclusion, I believe that this article should remain on Wikipedia, regardless of whether some "GameFAQs" user took the name without knowing its full meaning. Thank you.


 * Delete- No value as an article. No sources are cited, and the latter paragraphs make it apparent it's a joke.Toffile


 * Delete - There is no such mythological figure, dutch or otherwise. Those arguments would be fantastic if there were actually any root in reality of the entry.  Instead, it is a well-written but completely fallacious article.  None of the statements about Dutch mythology have any basis in history.  They are just handily written to be a malicious jab at an individual.
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because a myth is not well-known ("no such mythological figure") doesn't seem like a very good reason to erase it from Wikipedia. Surely the purpose of such a site as this is to educate and inform, even about even mythic figures? Even those who exist through fairy-tales, passed down by word of mouth ("have any basis in history"). It seems unfortunate that such oral history and culture should be erased from existence, merely because it isn't "written down".


 * Oral history and culture are important to be sure. However, this particular "legend" is not oral history or culture in the traditional sense.  It is not old.  It hasn't been passed down through generations.  It is merely a product of a clever mind and its desemination is a disservice to the users of the site and a black mark on the idea of wiki journalism.  The fact that without any substantiation or documentation purely fanciful and incorrect information is allowed to be posted without review is a serious cause for concern for the idea of a wiki fact site.  Just because something isn't written down doesn't mean that there is no substantiation.  Other oral histories, myths and fairy tales are documented through cultural studies - not necessarily written down by those continuing the oral tradition.  Just because you claim that something has basis in historic mythology doesn't mean that it actually has it.


 * Why don't you sign your comments so that we can see who you are? It doesn't lend your arguments much credibility if you refuse to make yourselves known as the source. CNash 22:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And for the record, guys, changing someone's personal comments after they've written them is puerile and pathetic. CNash 21:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm dutch, and I've never heard of anything like this before. In fact, even the image is just a photoshopped picture of the mod. If there really is a mythological figure called Sashanan, then it's nothing like the description says.


 * Delete. Not notable. TheCoffee 08:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It may not be as widely known, or as photographed (it is considered impossible to capture his image using conventional photography) as the Loch Ness monster ("It is not old. It hasn't been passed down through generations") or such myths which have a more factual basis, but raising awareness of such myths seems to be of value to our culture, rather than something which is worthy of censure. The Yeti, Sasquatch etc are not considered worthy of Wiki-deletion, merely because they may, or may not, resemble many users of the internet. ("In fact, even the image is just a photoshopped picture of the mod") Without being able to compare the two, has it ever occurred to you that the person in question may have knowingly named himself after the legendary beast; perhaps because he was aware of any similarities between himself and the creature? Complaining that myths have a fantastic, almost mythic quality (!) seems as silly as complaining about use of photoshop when handling photos. Sashanan


 * Delete and consider censuring the original poster not only for an elaborate hoax, but for the most appalling display of sockpuppetry ever foisted on Wikipedia. This is just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 16:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("an elaborate hoax") Aren't Bigfoot et al considered in precisely such a way? These myths are not considered worthy of deletion, merely because many people are aware of the myth. It seems a pity to delete less widely-known myths, simply because they are not quite so well known. Hopefully, Wikipedia exists to inform people about things which may not necessarily be part of common currency? ("appalling display of sockpuppetry") If mentioning Punch and Judy is now worthy of censure, it should be of concern to all Wikipedians. Sashanan 17:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I Googled the name "Sashanan." Know what I got?  Nothing, and I mean nothing but hits referring back to the GameFAQs user.  Same results Googling "Sashanan myth."  No mythological info whatsoever.  However, I'm keeping an open mind.  If you can point me to a legitimate website stating that Sashanan is indeed part of Dutch mythology, I will gladly and immediately change my vote and offer my sincerest apologies for accusing you of a hoax.  You're right about one thing:  This site does exist to inform of things that are not widely known yet remain notable.  A mythological creature with a long history is more than worthy of inclusion, even though it may be nearly unknown outside its area of origin. - Lucky 6.9 19:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not only does there have to be an actual "Sashanan" in Dutch mythology for this to be an appropriate entry, there needs to be a correlation between the description listed in the entry and a scholarly definition. As this description is tailored exactly to the individual user on GameFAQs, I highly doubt that such a correlation exists.  At the very least this is a highly inaccurate description and at the worst, it is libelous.  Certainly the link to the "blog" contains libelous material including a despicable phone conversation between a member of "LUELinks" and the father of the GameFAQs user Sashanan.  I don't know what forms of censure are available on wikipedia but I feel that the author of this article should be subject to the most severe possible.  Not only is this article likely false, but it is written in such a way that because of its excellent construction and brave exposition of "facts" it manages to fool some people and maintain a false guise of legitimacy.  132.239.153.57 20:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("If you can point me to a legitimate website stating that Sashanan is indeed part of Dutch mythology") Is Wikipedia not a legitimate site? It's a pity that to be considered legitimate for certain Wikipedians, something must be universally known. These clear, demonstrable facts are clearly what makes such figures as Bigfoot so worthy of their entries. ("At the very least this is a highly inaccurate description and at the worst, it is libelous") It would be diffiicult to libel a mythic figure. It is probably causing the supreme court nightmares, with the potential claims from Bigfoot, Yeti, the Loch Ness monster ("I've been defamed in this Scottish lake for years! I don't even like haggis!") etc in the works. ("brave exposition of "facts") The entry contains few, if any facts. It deals with mythology, the perception of truth, which has little primacy - merely accounts from those who (perhaps) claim that their version of the myth is more correct. If someone uses their imagination to overcome child abuse, which is what these stories most likely are, then who are we to deny them such mythic crutches? ("I Googled the name Sashanan") It would be interesting if you disputed the accuracy for the Wikipedia entry for "God", on grounds that nobody has been able to contact, or has seen, him directly, and that his website and email address are not available through search engines such as google. Sashanan


 * ("Is Wikipedia not a legitimate site?") That is riduculous.  You can't assert that your entry is real by referring to your entry for corroboration.  You can't pick yourself up in a bucket by pulling on the handles.  Further, you state at one point that there are "clear, demonstrable facts" yet later mention that the entry contains "few if any facts."  Which is it?  24.165.29.82 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For all interested parties: the name "Sashanan" was created by Sierra, Inc., a computer software company, in the early 1990s. The character Sashanan first appeared in one of the sequels to the "Quest for Glory" video game series. This is the origin of the name, not any mythology. Feel free to contact Sierra, or any current holder of Sierra's intellectual properties, for all the corraboration you might need. 68.47.80.157 05:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("by referring to your entry for corroboration") The poster concerned asked for a "legitimate" site where Sashanan was defined. Is this not such a site? I have no idea whether this is corroborative, or not. But I have many sources available which will lend some, small credence to this myth. If you accept that this is even possible to do? ("This is the origin of the name") I am uncertain whether such companies will admit to hijacking such myths. But it seems as if you accept that this myth has currency outside of a GameFAQs user, which seems to be the central complaint in this thread. ("you state at one point that there are "clear, demonstrable facts") If you look at the entry, you will be able to see that I refer (in an entirely non-ironic way) to the "clear, demonstrable facts" surrounding such myths as Bigfoot, the Yeti and the Loch Ness monster. Doubtless you'd agree that such non-existent facts are what make them worthy of a Wikipedia entry? Some entries on Wikipedia have no basis in any actual, demonstrable reality. Yet they still exist. It seems curious that you'd seek to deny this entry its existence, based on its supposed fantasticness. Sashanan 16:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("If you look at the entry, you will be able to see that I refer (in an entirely non-ironic way) to the "clear, demonstrable facts" surrounding such myths as Bigfoot, the Yeti and the Loch Ness monster") Your entry also implied that there are similar "clear, demonstrable facts" available for the "Sashanan myth."  I assert that there are none other than the ones you or your cronies invent. 24.165.29.82 21:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("Your entry also implied that there are similar "clear, demonstrable facts" available for the Sashanan myth") My entries have never mentioned any such thing, and have always maintained that there are few demonstrable truths in the make-up of made-up, mythic beasts, it is one reason why they have such a name. As far as having "cronies" goes, this is something you've produced from your own imagination. I am writing a book about the mythology "Lesser known fables - Aesop to Ziethor" of less well known folk figures, such as the Sashanan, and many of my sources will be available to view; once I receive permission, and approval of the translations etc. I hope these will be enough to corroborate what I believe to be an interesting myth, which has already seen quite some interest - judging from the responses to this thread. And that Wikipedians will allow some, small licence to explore areas of the human experience outside of the mainstream, since most of the things that happen on the fringes are quite fascinating in their own way. Few would seek to deny the entries on such subjects as UFOs, merely because they are mentioned in quite so many computer game sites and such. Sashanan 11:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I will kindly ask that you drop this charade. You know as well as I do that there is no such myth. The fact is: Sashanan is the name used by a GameFAQs moderator, who happens to be Dutch. This "myth" is simply part of a series of attacks on him that started on the GameFAQs boards approximately one month ago, and has clearly extended beyond them. The characteristics of the so-called "mythological figure" stem from some particularly nasty rumors that were a part of these attacks. Thus, this article has no basis in reality. Thank you.

The above is that user's first edit...and I find myself in total agreement. Let's end this ASAP. "Fudge-packing" and "pedophilia" scream that this is an attack page. - Lucky 6.9 20:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("The fact is:") This entry has no connection to anything except the myth concerned. Far from being connected to some anonymous user of some other, anonymous website, it seems that the myth has enough currency outside of itself to have been used as a pseudonym. It seems that you have already had a confession that the name was derived from a software company - who, in turn, derived the name from the myth honestly outlined here. Why you'd think that someone naming their account after a mythic figure is so difficult to believe would require quite an explanation. It would be impossible to connect someone, for example, who chooses to use the username "God" to any actual deity of this name. Although it would be an equally impressive to hear of such an individual attempting to delete the entry for "God" on Wikipedia, by claiming that he'd been insulted by such a comparison. Which he first made himself, by naming something as substantial as a pseudononymous account after a mythic figure. The purpose of Wikipedia is presumably to help educate people still? I can only apologise if my paltry words are not up to such a task. Sashanan 22:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You make the assertion that the software company took the name from the "myth" without any basis. Your arguments are wasting the time of people and your stated cause to have this remain is mendacious.  The difference between "God" and "Sashanan" is that there are actually other people who have heard of god in the context of a deity whereas "Sashanan" is solely the creation of a game company and subsequently the name taken by the user of a website.  Not a myth.  132.239.153.57 23:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("the software company took the name from the "myth" without any basis") You accept, then, that the individual you mention was not the originator of the name? I agree with you, though, that the name is widely know - and in the public domain. This is purely because of the mythic connections, which seem to be well known to those who have invested some time in researching such myths, at least. ("your stated cause to have this remain is mendacious") My aim is to educate those who have yet to hear of such a myth, which is hopefully something that Wikipedia still encourages. Particularly since (as this thread demonstrates) there are still some people who have yet to hear about the origins of such myths. It is a pity that you seek to deny everyone on this site the chance to educate themselves about something which you confess isn't very widely known. ("there are actually other people who have heard of god") Well, I can't complain that the provenance of god is so widespread. It is a pity that Wikipedia, via you, seeks to deny anyone the means to educate themselves about the origins of the Sashanan. Just because something is not widely appreciated, like such realistic figures as Santa Claus, does not make it any less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps I have more faith that topics which appear on the fringes are equally worthy of attention, but it would not be a great surprise to find that such pages are considered a waste of Wikipedia space. It's a pity, so far as the breadth of human understanding is concerned, however. Perhaps when Microsoft own this site, the generic entries will make everyone far more happy. Sashanan


 * Strong Delete This is vandalism. Unfortunately, it's subtle vandalism which makes it a pain to deal with.   Sashanan, please consider contributing to Wikipedia in a positive way.  Friday 15:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * DELETE, this is just total video game jibberish. Voice of All(MTG) 05:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to discover what has been "vandalised" precisely? The original entry ("A pivotal figure in Dutch mythology, known also as the "goblin van de nacht", or "goblin of the night". Typical folk stories involving him featured him tempting children with sweets and making them his slaves, and they were often used to scare children into not misbehaving.") has been left largely unchanged. The additions have expanded the original entry, providing readers with more substance and some background about the origins and developments to the myth. I can only hope that providing information is still considered as a "positive" contribution to Wikipedia, even if the myth is not yet widespread enough to be readily accepted by everyone? Sashanan 20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're only fooling yourself now. The "blog" link contained in the article is certainly a clear indicator as to the article's true purpose, and it destroys your story's credibility entirely. Realize that Wikipedia is not a place for carrying on such childish vendettas. 64.252.230.207 07:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Recommend: Delete. Utter nonsense relating to a series of personal attacks on GameFAQs moderator Sashanan (unrelated to the Wikipedia user of the same name) that occured earlier this month. CNash 11:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("a clear indicator as to the article's true purpose") The article's true purpose is to provide some information about a mythic figure. ("Utter nonsense") It seems of slightly questionable merit to complain that mythic figures do not tally exactly with your own, earnest outlook on life. These myths are rarely meant to be cosy tales. The stories seem designed both to challenge our values and act as a warning to children. In this respect, the Sashanan seems to fulfil the needs which such myths are founded on. ("on GameFAQs moderator Sashanan") Although there have been complaints that someone has used the name on a computer games site, they seem almost arbitrary ones. It is hardly Wikipedia's concern, whether users of external sites use such usernames, even more fantastic that there are any complaints about the myths that are the basis of such names. ("Let's end this ASAP. "Fudge-packing" and "pedophilia" scream that this is an attack") Similarly, complaining that confectionary (Hansel and Gretel) or paedophilia (Red Riding Hood) should dare to be mentioned in relation to yet another mythic figure seems like a unique grievance. The myth existed long before the internet was invented and will hopefully last until Microsoft's internet XP is released. In the meantime, I have provided a typical account of a confrontation with the Sashanan on the discussion page, and am prepared to use similar quotes from my book (as sources) once it is published. Sashanan 19:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I notice that you dodged my point about the "blog" entirely. 64.252.220.159 20:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I have now checked the history of this article and have a couple more points. For one, earlier versions of the article referenced GameFAQs directly.
 * Second, and more important, I looked up the creator of the original article. They were only identified by an IP address, however, a look at the IP's talk page informs us that the IP is registered to a UK internet provider. Meanwhile, the personal attacks on GameFAQs moderator Sashanan mentioned earlier were perpetrated by a group of GameFAQs users from the UK.
 * This needs to end now. 64.252.222.72 22:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also think this is disgusting, I was extremely afraid of Sashanan as a child, and I certainly don't want to be scared as an adult.


 * Recommended: keep. A user on an external site using the name of this mythic beast pseudononymously seems like one of the most incredible reasons to delete an article that has ever been produced. Fortunately for my delicate sensibilities, it doesn't offend me to be linked with my own research. ("the IP is registered to a UK internet provider") It seems like a sensible precaution to prohibit anyone who dares to exist in the UK from contributing to this site. It ensures that well-researched, and "well-written" articles have little chance of appearing on these pages. It will be a pity, although exacting and appropriate, to have entries for such insignificant persons as Shakespeare, TE Lawrence and Churchill deleted. ("I notice that you dodged my point about the "blog"") It's fortunate for us, that few facts escape your attention. Luckily, the blog makes up part of the developing mythology, and has already been put into context by the article. Most, and perhaps all, myths which exist to frighten us will eventually, and perhaps always have been, a source of this kind of questionable, black humour; as earlier references to Punch and Judy make clear. It seems as if (even for no other reason) that these blogs are a way to reiterate and expand the mythology, since it is little known, outside (and seemingly inside) the Netherlands. Although it is yet another source which exists to expand on the ancient myth - and put it into a modern context. I prefer to think of it as being a modern variant of the oral tradition which such myths are founded on; or the way these myths are developed, in part, because of gossip. A pity, so far as I am concerned at least, that this is considered so worthy of censorship. It would be interesting to have your opinion on the bare-faced, wholly factual truth contained in such pages as Bigfoot, Yeti and Loch ness monster, however? ("This needs to end now") Education needs to end now? This is likely to be Dubya's next campaign slogan. Sashanan
 * You aren't fooling anyone anymore, you know. I, for one, am tired of my intelligence being insulted.  Oh, and keep the anti-Bush rhetoric to yourself.  It isn't the least bit funny. - Lucky 6.9 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it rather amusing that you continue to simply dance around all the points brought up. It is quite clear that you are only trying to mislead. To make things perfectly clear, the "blog" page not only contains links to the LiveJournal site of the GameFAQs user Sashanan, but down near the bottom are multiple entries about being a GameFAQs moderator. It is quite foolish to claim that it is anything other than a series of insults.


 * ("to simply dance around all the points brought up") I have attempted to address each and every concern which has been raised in connection to the mythology surrounding the Sashanan. Most of these concerns seem to be centred around an anonymous user of a computer games site, who named himself after the mythic beast. It is unfortunate that so many people feel that he has somehow insulted himself, by linking to the mythic creature so explicitly. There has already been a confession that this user was not the originator of the name and that it appears in many other sources. I have simply tried to expand on the actual origins of such myths. It's a pity that my attempts to educate people about such subjects is met with the resistance shown here. Why do you find it so difficult to open your mind to something outside of the everyday and the black and white? ("To make things perfectly clear, the "blog" page not only contains links to the LiveJournal site of the GameFAQs user Sashanan") There have been no links made to any blogs produced by a user named Sashanan whatsoever, by myself. Since I have not been able to find such a blog, online. I have, however, received explicit permission to link to the blog used in the entry. Can you explain why you'd have a problem with expanding the myth, and putting it into a modern context for internet users - which is the point of such links? ("Oh, and keep the anti-Bush rhetoric to yourself") Wikipedia makes it clear that you might find "terse, gruff, and abrupt" language and "that it is about the article, not about you" in discussions about deleted entries. It's nothing personal, you understand. Unless you happen to be the President concerned? Insofar as your own abusive efforts go, I would refer you here: "I, for one, am tired of my intelligence being insulted" I hope that you will see that it is intelligent users who should appreciate such entries, and be delighted that Wikipedia still welcomes those open-minded enough to encourage the development of such imaginative myths. Sashanan 16:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems that you have proven my point completely. Anyone who visits the supposed "blog" will see the links to GF user Sashanan's LiveJournal, in plain view, at the top of the page. Furthermore, you neglect to explain the direct references to GameFAQs in the entries near the bottom of the page, in addition to the URL itself. (CJayC is the founder of GameFAQs.) There is no concern at all with any "mythology" at all, simply an attack. It has been shown quite clearly throughout the course of this discussion that there is no Sashanan myth, yet you continue to defend this collection of lies and personal attacks with convoluted replies that give no real information.


 * This should make things a little clearer. "Sashanan", unless you can give a vaild link to a reputable source outside of Wikipedia that comments on "the Sashanan" (known web page, ISBN or title for a book, etc.), then I may assert that this page falls under the category of Original Research and is thus disallowed by Wikipedia policy. See also: Verifiability. CNash 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("will see the links to GF user Sashanan's LiveJournal") No such link exists, so far as I am aware. ("Furthermore, you neglect to explain the direct references to GameFAQs in the entries near the bottom of the page") No such references exist in the current entry, so far as I am aware. ("There is no concern at all with any "mythology" at all") There is a great deal of concern with the mythology of such a figure, since this is what the article is all about. ("unless you can give a valid link to a reputable source outside of Wikipedia") I have given a number of published sources, if you accept that a blog can be cited as such. Ditto to the videogame. If these are not acceptable, then my own research will be published soon - and it doesn't seem too presumptuous to give Wikipedians the chance to stay ahead of the traditional print media. I've always considered that the number of news stories which appear on the front pages of this site demonstrate that Wikipedia is more than the dry, dusty encyclopedia that some users would prefer it to be. ("ISBN or title for a book, etc") CNash, you've already stated that the name appears in "the pages of European Mythological Gods and Goddesses" and that "this is in fact a true mythological figure", which sounds like you've already verified for yourself that the myth exists. And in what sounds like an authoritative tome, too. Sashanan 08:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Claiming to have not seen the links or the references mentioned indicates that you either have not even read the "blog" page, or are simply lying. Meanwhile, you also appear to have ignored the links posted by CNash. The "blog" is not a reputable source of information, and more importantly, it makes no assertions regarding a "mythological figure" whatsoever. Referencing the videogame is also pointless, as you cannot prove that its creators derived the name Sashanan from your supposed "myth." And even if you are writing a book on the subject that has yet to be published, this still falls under the category of Original Research as CNash has stated. Even if your stated intention is to "give Wikipedians the chance to stay ahead of the traditional print media," the article is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.
 * And regarding your last point, I see no statement by CNash on this page stating verification of your myth. Nice try. 64.252.221.212 09:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("indicates that you either have not even read the "blog" page") I have the blog open in another browser tab. Perhaps you can direct me to where the supposed link to this other blog exists? Doubtless you have made an honest mistake? ("Meanwhile, you also appear to have ignored the links posted by CNash") Au contraire: ("I see no statement by CNash on this page stating verification of your myth. Nice try") Naturally, I don't have your kind of bare-faced honesty or those finely-honed observational skills. Perhaps can apply them, by pointing your brain here: Nice, as they say, try. Sashanan 19:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As I have mentioned before, changing someone's personal comments after they've written them is puerile and pathetic. This argument is going nowhere; you're a common troll, and continuing to argue the point is futile. The vote tally is against you; I suggest that we wait for arbitration. CNash 21:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice work editing the "blog" page to include an entry on your "mythology." Directly below all of the blatant GameFAQs references you claim you can not see. Also, nice work removing the most obvious link to Sashanan's LJ. This work only serves to show that it is worthless as an information source. Let's do as CNash suggests, and simply wait. 64.252.220.25 23:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * ("This argument is going nowhere") It seems as if the argument, if not the silly, sock puppet tally, is going against you. Your main concern seems to be the feelings of some anonymous user of some computer games site, who has named themselves after the myth I have been careless enough to have outlined. Why this should be cause for censorship is a mystery to me. I was delighted to have discovered, after seeing the original entry, that someone else had heard about the Sashanan myth and I have merely tried to expand on the entry - and provide some further background information. These efforts to make Wikipedia a more exhaustive source of information have been deemed not good enough, seemingly because they go some small way in confirming the existence of the myth. Which is deemed "puerile" and "well-written" amongst other things. ("As I have mentioned before, changing someone's personal comments after they've written them is puerile and pathetic") All of the editing that I've done should be obvious, not least from my unique linguistic style. I can only assume that you have changed your mind since you originally posted your comments, for reasons best explained by yourself, to yourself. I have remained consistent in trying to preserve an interesting myth, and I have not changed the comments of anyone whatsoever. ("Also, nice work removing the most obvious link to Sashanan's LJ") As far as I am aware, no such link exists on the blog. Or has ever existed. I can vaguely recall there being a few links to some other blank pages a while ago, but they seem to have disappeared - possibly because of their irrelevance? You would be better off asking the person who maintains the blog, who might be able to provide you with some other facts about the mythology? But feel free to provide a link to this other non-mythic blog, you mentioned, if you believe it is relevant in any way? Sashanan 17:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Tally of signed votes
For DELETION: 11

Against DELETION: 1


 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.