Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superrooters

 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 and damn the sock puppets. &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Superrooters
Delete. Appears to be a local club. Zero google hits and no indicia of encyclopedic notability. External link provided confirms this suspicion. -- BD2412 talk 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Save.Have heard of the superrooters, but they are considered an underground society with a great deal of sway at the university of adelaide, so there is unlikely to be anything publicised about them. -- JohnyChimpo talk 00:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * delete agreed; even if notable then it has the same problem as other secret societies, in that it is not verifiable. &mdash; brighterorange (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * (user 's first edit) &mdash; brighterorange (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

save. I've also heard about them, I went to adelaide university for 5 years and they're an important part of the culture of the university. Keep it up.
 * Vote actually by . Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Save the Rooters They exist, ask any recent graduate from Adelaide University, they'll all claim to have met a 'rooter.
 * Vote actually by . Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Save I'm dating one of the 'secret seven' and I can well and truly testify to the existence of the superrooters. I'm sure that me, and many other girls, can vouch for the worthiness of the superrooters.
 * Vote actually by again. Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Save I met a superrooter at Skullduggery, they're the real deal.
 * Vote actually by . Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Unverifiable university group of which the article states "Not much is known about the club other than the fact that there were seven original members." BTW, root is Australian slang word for sex heightening my suspicion that this is a hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Save Looks good to me.  -Widdy ......... added to the top at 03:23, September 23, 2005 by 210.211.100.143


 * SAVE SAVE SAVE! The superrooters are alive and well. our most recent meeting was very 'roductive with the induction of a number of new members and a 'roposal for alliance with the COE. we do heaps of tops shit like skolling and bbqs,our choral subcommittee is also coming ahead in leaps and bounds. let us have no further discussion as to the deletion of Superrooters, we are alive and well with a 'romising future. - Danger ....added to the top at 09:43, September 22, 2005 by 61.68.227.7


 * SAVE Mr Danger Makes a compelling argument and is obviously a well educated man. We should save these heroic superrooters. 203.166.5.68 20:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Warney


 * Delete, unverifiable and probably hoaxy university group. Lord Bob 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unverifiable and not notable even if it exists --Camw 01:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable vanity hoax - and disruption of AfD. WCFrancis 01:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Save* GfYs
 * Vote actually by again. Lord Bob 01:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Sockpuppets are out in all their glory today. Ashibaka (tock) 02:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Blokes You're all such good blokes, with, I imagine, heaps of cool friends, hot girlfriends and witty acronyms and jargon for everything. Not like the geeky limp dick poofs that you sound like. Boy the Buttslammers are really masterbating over the keyboard today.
 * (Above unsigned comment by user ) -- Camw 04:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Save I knew it.  I always thought the Superrooters were real and now I have found this.
 * Vote actually by . Lord Bob 02:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * DELETE, I thought I'd capitalise my vote just so it could be seen over this flurry of puppets.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the sockpuppets. Oh, and the article too. -- MCB 04:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the ATTACK OF THE SUPERSOCKPUPPETS! Oh, delete the damned thing. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any article about a contemporary subject which states "Not much is known about [the subject]" is most likely unverifiable and non-notable. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Save I think to delete this page would be a victory for systematic bias over inclusiveness. Who cares if they are a university group? They exist, at least in some ppl's minds.
 * Unsigned vote by -- Camw 04:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "They exist, at least in some ppl's minds" is perhaps the funniest (and lamest) justification I've seen for a keep vote. Delete, obviously.  Bikeable 05:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE'SAVE
 * Vote by . Lord Bob 05:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notible. Jwissick 05:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn Usrnme h8er 07:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Save and File this page This organisation has significant influence on the cultural identity of Adelaide University and its students and as such should be kept up. The influence of this club can be seen in their structured mentoring program for gifted individuals, which fosters intellectual, spiritual and physical growth. They are an active participant in many events and there are frequent references to them in community newspapers, street press and University communications. You don't have to spend long in Adelaide to hear a story about a good deed they've done or a function they've organised. This organisation has been involved in the running and organisation of the prestigious Cascade Cup. Including rowing to several notable victories. They are known to stand for the strict maintenance of rules and standards in inter Varsity 'rograms. Most of the comments posted above seem to come from well intentioned but illinformed users from the other side of the globe. I appreciate their input and it's understandable that patent attorneys from the US would have little understanding of the cultural significance of such an organisation. The page stays because it contributes positively to the World of knowledge that is Wikipedia. unsigned vote by:
 * If they're notable, someone should write a proper article demonstrating this.... failing which, delete. TheMadBaron 10:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if they are so keen to adhere to rules and standards, they should have a look at our rules of no sockpuppetry and no personal attacks. Buttslam, I mean, Delete. --Last Malthusian 10:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for patently obvious reasons and sockpuppetry.Vizjim 10:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete if little can be said about a society and the things that can be said can't be verified, there's no material for an article. To those who want to save the entry, please see WP:V and WP:NOR. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet supported and non-verifiable? Smells like a Delete to me.--Isotope23 14:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Beep beep beep beep delete, sockpuppet limit reached. Proto t c 15:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * delete SP/nn &asymp; jossi &asymp; 17:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The cloying sockpuppetry is amusing though. Dottore So 18:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Save It is clear to me that this article should be well and truly retained. The use of the term 'sockpuppetry' which all you deleters despise is just xenophobia towards people of the wider community intruding in on your little world. How many people do you think actually spend all their time critiquing websites? It makes sense that anonymous users should vote for this article, as it refers to and is known by people whose main concern is not the internet, or let alone wikipedia. Furthermore, comments like 'unverifiable' really pertain to the effort applied and the access to such knowledge. A quick search on google, an american centric search engine, is hardly enough evidence to rule that something well known, significant and verifiable in the city of Adelaide Australia, doesn't exist. The enthusiasm of some of the'sockpuppets' while over done, is indicative of the very real existence and influence of this club. The article editor obviously thought that Wikipedia was a global repository of knowledge- which is not something that is only approved and seconded by a small esoteric community of close minded internet dwellers. unsigned vote by:
 * I'm an Adelaidean and can safely say this is bullshit. Stop sock-puppeting.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Save.  It's a good thing that the Cyberjunkie knows everything about Adelaide, bow down before the mighty intellect of the all knowing and wise Cyberjunkie who is so learned that he ended up at Flinders Uni. It's safe to say that the intellectual powerhouse that is Flinders has produced some well informed individuals over the years, but CyberJunkie must be foremost amongst them becuase he knows everything about Adelaide. I think it's safe to say that CyberJunkie hasn't bothered doing any research other than going to the comic book store or tapping away at the keyboard. If Cyberjunkie bothered asking around, or even looking in a few local publications, they'd see many references to this organisation. In fact only a few months ago they featured live on channel 7's sunrise program. I suppose when you are hacking the internet and deleting wikipedia articles all night, you don't get up early enough to watch morning TV. The sort of subjective generalisations that CyberJunkie is making are reason enough to delete everything he's ever contributed to Wikipedia, but since i'm not a vindictive busy body, I've got better things to do than conduct some sort of Cyber terrorism against legitimate encyclopedic content. It's safe to say that a little bit of knowledge(Flinders Uni) in CyberJunkie's case is a bad thing.
 * Vote, such as it is, by . Lord Bob 00:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the laugh! --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable. --Ashenai 09:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sockpuppets would be enough for me to vote this way, but the article itself doesn't merit inclusion anyway. Mindmatrix 16:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it's sockuppet bait, then there's probably a good chance it should be deleted regardless of content. This article doesn't even have that content, so it's pretty much dead. Karmafist 03:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * save. having met some superroots i can say they exist. although they are not as spectactular as they might like to beleive. also the history they give here is wrong because they were actually founded in 2002 in hobart by the originalsuperroots ..... added at 03:46, September 23, 2005 by 192.43.227.18
 * Save. There is no 'sockpuppetry' here. Simply people with a shared, and vested interest in preserving this small and untroubling reference to a society affiliated with the uni of Adelaide. Lord bob, professes "inclusionism" as one of his "wikibeliefs" but is seemingly determined to have this page removed thereby being decidedly "anti-inclusionist". Snowy ..... added at 10:58, September 23, 2005 by 220.238.247.203
 * Delete Not notable. There are thousands of university societies like this one. I'd be willing to listen to any rationale as to why this one is different, but until then there seems little reason to include this. &mdash;Zootm 11:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per sockpuppets. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Junk infected with our friend sockpuppets that should meet Mr.Ban --Aranda56 01:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. --A bit iffy 14:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable (and ignore the votes to Save if these sockpuppets can't figure out the correct form is Keep, they don't deserve to have their votes counted) -- Arthur Rubin 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this vanity/hoax quickly, please. -- Hoary 11:09, 27 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.