Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Gay ICP: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:08, 16 July 2006 editZsinj (talk | contribs)Administrators16,127 editsm JS: Reverted edits by 152.163.100.202 to last version by Caesura← Previous edit Revision as of 22:11, 16 July 2006 edit undoYaR GnitS (talk | contribs)41 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
'''NN, POV''' Material is not notable, and appears to be a POV push against the subject, the band ]. Structural bias in article title, "Gay ICP", as well. ] 08:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC) '''NN, POV''' Material is not notable, and appears to be a POV push against the subject, the band ]. Structural bias in article title, "Gay ICP", as well. ] 08:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', of course; I am the nominator. ] 08:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', of course; I am the nominator. ] 08:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' on further inquiry, article ] seems to be the sole creation of ]. ] 08:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' on further inquiry, article ] seems to be the worst creation of ]. ] 08:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', this passage was repeatedly used to vandalize the main article, and only created after the main article was semiprotected.--] 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Huh?''', Hasn't Kasreyn vandalized the main ICP page?.--] 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', This text has vandalized the main page many times. The references listed do not point to anything at all relevant to the text. If the author can not come up with some reputable source then it is pure garbage. ] 12:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC) * '''Why is this here?'''. Any claims on sexual preferences of the band belong on the band article (]), but ] has edited this addition and many others out, because it didn't coincide with his POV. ] 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep it''' per nom. ] 19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''delete'''. Any claims on sexual preferences of the band belong on the band article (]). ] has only contributed vandal edits to articles. ] 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. ] 19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep it''' as above. <span style="background-color:#000000"><font color="white">(|--</font></span> <span style="background-color:#CCCCCC"><font color="red">'''UlT<font color="green">i<font color="blue">MuS'''</font></font></font> <sup>( ] | ] | ] | ] )</sup></span> 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as above. <span style="background-color:#000000"><font color="white">(|--</font></span> <span style="background-color:#CCCCCC"><font color="red">'''UlT<font color="green">i<font color="blue">MuS'''</font></font></font> <sup>( ] | ] | ] | ] )</sup></span> 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Been hearing voices, Koosh? ] 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*:Note this diff: As you can see, ] rewrote Koosh's vote fraudulently. ] has been reported to an administrator. ] 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*:Not lately. Thanks Kasreyn. --] 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm seeing very strong support here; does anyone agree this is a case for a '''speedy delete'''? ] 22:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' I'm seeing very strong support here; does anyone agree this is a case for a '''speedy delete'''? ] 22:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I wouldn't say speedy delete. I disagee that this material is NN--I think it is notable, and not designed to bias the subject any more than it would be to say that Charles Nelson Reilly is gay. That said, I do believe that the structural bias in the article title is unacceptable, so this article should probably be deleted, but its content merged with the main article. I think it's a biased attempt by fans of ICP to keep this information out of the main article, and that the creator of this article was taking a valid stand by creating it if ICP fans are putting their own POV in the article. ] 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC) *'''What?''' Been hearing voices, Kasreyn? Aside from your numerous comments Kasreyn, I don't see much support of your POV.] 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I wouldn't speedy delete this article. I disagee that this material is "unreliable"--I think it is notable, and not designed to bias the subject any more than it would be to say that Charles Nelson Reilly is gay. That said, I do believe that the structural bias in the article title is unacceptable, so this article should probably be deleted, but its content merged with the main article. I think it's a biased attempt by fans of ICP to keep this information out of the main article, and that the creator of this article was taking a valid stand by creating it if ICP fans are putting their own POV in the article. ] 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' It's completely unsourced and unencyclopedic. I don't see it as a valid stand at all. It was removed from the ICP article several times because it's utter nonsense with nothing to back it up, and then it was put back up as its own article with "sources" that aren't even articles. The remainder of claims are rife with weasel words like "many rumors." I'm not sure on what grounds you can defend this article, or a merge into the main ICP article.--] 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :*'''Comment''' I'm not sure on what grounds you can propose to delete this article, or a remove it from the main ICP article.--] 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' If it is that noteworthy then please provide at least one source to back up this claim. The text makes a reference to an interview in a magazine. I have not found any source of the existance of the magazine. The article lists four references which do not have any relevant information and are only there in an attempt to make the article look substantial. Personally, I am not a fan of the group or their style of music and do not care if the statements are true or false. I am just trying to preserve the integrity of the article. If you can show me one valid verifiable reference then I would consider supporting adding this to the main article. --] 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC) :*'''Comment''' It is that noteworthy and verified. The text makes a reference to an interview in a magazine. I have found the source of the material. The article lists four references which are quite relevant information and are only there to make the article more substantial. Personally, I am not a fan of the group or their style of music and do not care if the statements are true or false. I am just trying to preserve the integrity of the article. If you can show me one valid reason for deletion, then I would consider supporting removing this from wiki. --] 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Save it''' I personally verified these sources, and they all exceed expectations. Riviting stuff people. >] 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per all the lovely comments above. I don't think it's speedyible under ] (A7-attack pages comes close but not quite), but I certainly wouldn't have a problem if an admin closed it early under ] given the vandalism that has occurred in this discussion. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Hold on''' per all the lovely comments above. I don't think it's speedyible under wikipedian legislation at all. <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Interesting''' It's interesting, and more than just POV since it's verifiably true. It might be worth briefly mentioning it in the main ICP article as well.--] 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' Nine for, and nobody has actually ''voted'' against. The only defender is an anonymous IP who left a comment not a vote, and the author of the article didn't vote but rather saw fit to vandalize everyone else's votes to sway the discussion. Yeah, I think ] applies. Unless things change radically very soon, we should be able to put this one to bed.--] 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Agreed''' per nom. ] 06:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Delete'''While interesting, it is so POV that it is impossible to know whether it is true or not. It might be worth briefly mentioning it in the main ICP article, but otherwise, get rid of it.--] 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Delete''' per nom. ] 06:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:11, 16 July 2006

Gay ICP

NN, POV Material is not notable, and appears to be a POV push against the subject, the band Insane Clown Posse. Structural bias in article title, "Gay ICP", as well. Kasreyn 08:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not sure on what grounds you can propose to delete this article, or a remove it from the main ICP article.--Rosicrucian 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is that noteworthy and verified. The text makes a reference to an interview in a magazine. I have found the source of the material. The article lists four references which are quite relevant information and are only there to make the article more substantial. Personally, I am not a fan of the group or their style of music and do not care if the statements are true or false. I am just trying to preserve the integrity of the article. If you can show me one valid reason for deletion, then I would consider supporting removing this from wiki. --Koosh 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Save it I personally verified these sources, and they all exceed expectations. Riviting stuff people. >Riddlebox Wraithz 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hold on per all the lovely comments above. I don't think it's speedyible under wikipedian legislation at all. 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting It's interesting, and more than just POV since it's verifiably true. It might be worth briefly mentioning it in the main ICP article as well.--Wakefencer 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed per nom. Postdlf 06:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)