- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Wouldn't normally close something I voted on, but, save for the article's author, the vote from established Wikipedians is universally for deletion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eire Shamrock/ Prodigal Fenian[edit]
A vanity article about a Jennifer Government: NationStates player. Goobergunch|? 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD has been vandalized several times by Celtic1 and 65.185.150.237. Before making edits, please check the recent page history to make sure you are not editing a vandalized version.
- Delete per nomination. As a note, I've learned as NSwiki administrator that ES tends to forceably resist having his material deleted, so be aware. --Goobergunch|? 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I am not ES. I am from the same region as he is. You know full well that many people edit the ES articles.
This mod is biased, read the personal note. I move for this page to be kept as it is pertinent to Nationstates as this is a famous plaer. There is no reason to have this removed aside from a personal vendetta. Thank you Celtic1
- I don't see how this is a "vanity" article, or merits deletion. It makes for interesting history, and at the most needs some editing, but definetly not deletion. The pursuing of this case by the game moderators only seem to justify this player's arguments. unsigned edit by User:66.65.171.126
- Cheers -- thanks for the comment, and I agree. It's not a vanity article or whatever that even means. Goobergunch needs to chill a bit, it's mean that he would abuse power like this. If he wants, we can get 50 or so people to come in here and explain how this article is fine for wikipedia. I don't really understand his problem, as one was never clearly stated other than a personal dislike. Celtic1
- Articles on NationStates subgroups are non-notable. See precedent Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Affairsl if ES is more notable than the Europe region, I'm going for VfU immediately on European Affairs. As a side note, the article was vanity because it was created by User:Celtic1, who is either ES/PF or a close ally and friend. See Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines#Policy regarding vanity articles. And to address Celtic1's flooding threat, I could quite easily get most of the NationStates IRC channel to support deletion, but I'm not going to make that request because it's a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia policy. --Goobergunch|? 23:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not a vanity article and you know it -- stretching the guidelines EXTREMELY there. It can be edited by anyone that sees a fault with it, and it was not written by the person him/herself. You know for a fact from NSWiki that many people edit ES/PF articles, not just him.
As for the article being non-notable, the parallel between the European Affairs article and this one are tenous at best. This is an article about a figure, not a region. Your extreme bias is clouding your judgment, as the two reasons you just thought up to back up your bias do not hold up to further inspection. You go to Harvey Mudd, which is a good school. Could you not think of anything better to try to push your obvious agenda?
I could quite easily get all of the Irish and allied nations to come on here, but it's a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia policy, and don't want to be as clearly personally involved and biased as you. Celtic1
- Delete. This is material for Encyclopedia Dramatica, not Wikipedia. And Celtic1, even if you followed through on your threat to bring sockpuppets here to vote for the article to be kept, it wouldn't make a difference; such votes are discounted. All you'd do is waste everyone's time and convince people who might be on the fence that the article should be deleted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is silly. You're claiming Goobergunch is biased, when you created an article about how you feel your friend got screwed by some moderators in an online game? And then you spit 'biased' in his face cause he disagrees with you, and seems to understand the spirit of Wikipedia policy. I like how you made the threat, and then, later, after Goobergunch mentioned that such mass spammage of voting was against Wikipedia policy, you claimed basically that would be the 'bigger man' and not do something you had already threatened to do. Which, at a guess, you had no idea was a violation of policy when you first threatened to do it. Go home, Celtic.--129.59.26.71 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you are clearly a sockpuppet of Goobergunch's from your dramatic and aggressive tone. Goobergunch has been hostile from the start, and so I remarked that I would bring in others to back up my case. Then he stated he would bring in sockpuppets, "NationStates IRC channel to support deletion", and you show up soon after, even though he stated he wouldn't resort to that! There has been two favorable votes for this article, and two against, so it's tied. I don't think that the hostile tone that you and Goobergunch are using is going to persuade those on the fence about this article. It's clear there is a cabal against this article, as Goobergunch's NSwiki many attacks against the ES/PF article will prove.
Bringing you here really doesn't do his deletion case any good, and in the spirit of Wikipedia I'd like it if you were just a tad neutral. Celtic1
- Celtic1, I am going to tell you about two Wikipedia policies which you should read immediately: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am going to tell you about these policies so that you have no possible excuse to pretend you didn't know about them. Desist immediately from accusing other people of being sockpuppets based purely on the fact that they agree with Goobergunch and disagree with you. I don't know who Goobergunch is, but I can read the article myself and tell that there is no notability to this subject. I can also read this AfD and see that you have twisted the truth abominably ("twisted the truth" is in fact shading the facts in your favor; I'm really more inclined to use the word "lie".) You claimed, falsely, that Goobergunch "stated he would bring in sockpuppets". The truth, of course, is that you said you could "get 50 or so people to come in here and explain how this article is fine for wikipedia"; Goobergunch pointed out that this was neither an ethical tactic nor a practical one, since even if sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the kind you threatened were taken seriously, he could simply do the same as you were threatening just as effectively. For you to publicly lie and claim that a) Goobergunch threatened to "bring in sockpuppets", and that b) you are entitled to declare anyone you disagree with as one of those sockpuppets based on their "tone", is shameless effrontery. You are doing your cause more harm than good with this behavior. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be changed, then change it -- that is what Wikipedia is about. In my POV it's non biased -- fans of all things write articles on Wikipedia and you know it! People then change them. The logic you are using here is appalling, and there is plainly a goobergunch inspired agenda here. If this article were about Nirvana, and a fan wrote it, another fan would change it.
Same with this article -- if there are problems change it, but don't act like a facist goon squad just because Goobergunch called you in here. The facts are not on your side, and the comments here are extremely anti Wikipedia in nature. Go home user .--[[User:129.59.26.71|129.59.26.71 Celtic1
- Nyeeeeeargh. Delete as subtrivial kerfluffle on Nationstates, the worst source of lame drama since Livejournal. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Celtic1, curb your paranoia. I've never heard of Goobergunch, you, or the subject of this article; I found it by looking at WP:AFD/Today, a list of all the articles that have been nominated for deletion today. (It's currently on WP:AFD/Yesterday now, though.) If you delete my vote or anyone else's again, though, you will be blocked for vandalism. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Textbook vanity. This shouldn't be deleted, it should be nuked from orbit (it's the only way to be sure). --Calton | Talk 00:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your "vote" was deleted as it shouldn't be here. Goober asked you to come here, and it's not fair and very anti-Wiki.
I've emailed Goober directly, and hopefully this will be sorted out. I ask those interested in helping balance the article. It plainly should not be deleted, and Wikipedia should not be a battleground like NSwiki was! This is a silly debate, and those voting for deletion have not even made valid points! Comments like "clearly vanity" don't really cut it. Anyhow, I agree it is biased, as it's cut and paste from that site ES had -- just help fix it. Definitely an interesting human interest story, like many other similiar wikipedia entries not put up for deletion by someone with a history with the person.
Hopefully Goobergunch will help contribute to the article, and not just attempt to delete it. It will be a sad day for Wikipedia if this is deleted. Celtic1
UPdate: Email to Goobergunch bounced back, here is full text.
Hi Goober,
Hope Freshman year is going well, for me it was a great time! :)
I am Celtic1, and have played NS for just over two years. I've been in and a
few other regions, and am one of the people that sticks up for ES. Why? He
was a good leader for many of us when we first came to ireland, and we're
loyal to him. I don't know what history you two have, but I also see what
happened on the NSwiki.
Wanted to discuss what is going on in Wikipedia. It seems like the same
fight has broken out there, and before it escalated to the NSwiki type of
argument, I wanted to write to you directly.
There is no doubt in my mind that that article should stand, but I agree
with you that it needs to be edited. I'd like you to help me edit it so
there is more balance. It is an interesting story and there are loads of
articles that are human interest like this on wikipedia. I was lazy in
cutting and pasting from the es/pf site, so it will have to be changed.
As a more experience wikipedian, I'd like you to guide me a bit with this. I
don't think this deletion battle will be good for anyone, just a waste of
everyones time and it will be as silly as the nswiki episode. It's a zero
sum game, and I ask for your patient, expert help in this matter.
We definitely got off on the wrong foot there, but it's important that we
not inject personal feelings into wikipedia, as it's such an amazing tool.
Look forward to your reply, and hopefully help with the article.
Best,
Renny
P.S. How can a page that states, "to his detractors he's a delusional lunatic that spouts nonsense" be considered a "vanity" page??? :)
- Delete. Even if this article was verifiable, people's video game characters are not encyclopedic. And, please, this isn't a message board. Jkelly 01:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable gamecruft. And send the controversy back to the game's own wiki; we don't need it here. MCB 06:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't really need an article on NationStates users/nations/regions/what have you here, do we? (Rhetorical, by the way.) Seconded on the request from MCB, too, this can take place on NSWiki if anything. -- NSLE | Talk 09:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT - As a side note, I'd like to point out to this Celtic1 that Goobergunch is NOT a NationStates moderator, and has never been one.... -- NSLE | Talk 10:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the grounds that this is the kind of article that goes into NSWiki rather than here. That's why we've got NSWiki after all. KP 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and if it has to be up, let it be so on NSwiki. This United State 09:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC) User's only edit so far.[reply]
- Delete non-notable NationStatescruft. --Johntex\talk 09:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oy, non-notable and puppet limit exceeded. Xoloz 13:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny to us. Like this vote counts for anything, as you know what is going to happen anyway. This vote was not accepted by the people. C'est la vie. Celtic1
- "Not accepted by the people"? Beg to differ, I can't see but one keep vote. -- NSLE | Talk 07:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ, I can't see one delete vote that counts. Celtic1
- However, you aren't the one doing the counting. If your "you know what is going to happen anyway" is a veiled threat that you will come back and re-create it, sorry to let you know that that will be considered vandalism and earn you a block. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Why some people have to satisfy their pityful egos with this kind of, ah... sad... so sad... Errr, yes. Delete. Aka Hoshi Rezo 14:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So the vote is 7 to keep, 4 to delete. Looks like it is staying. Celtic1
- Delete. I can't see an article like this being accepted on NSwiki, let alone here. Its sheer propagandist nature is exceeded only by its utter lack of notability. Famous player? Does anyone outside NS care? Does anyone inside NS care? I have my doubts. Please, someone, just kill it. --Sirithil 17:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone cares except for you, since you're clearly delusional. It's sad that the freaks have come out of the woodwork for this.
The vote is now 7 to keep, 5 to delete. Still looks like it is staying. Celtic1
- "The vote is now 7 to keep, 5 to delete." Right. Glad counting is one of your strong suits. Okay, as a member of the NS IRC channel, let me make clear what did occur. Goober mentioned that another article about NS was up for deletion on Wikipedia proper, at no point mentioning (to my knowledge) that he was the one who placed it there. Links were demanded from him. I know that I personally read the article in question, the debate, and the referenced Wikipedia policy articles before casting my vote. Now, assuming the support Goober did not request counted as sockpuppets (which as far as I can tell, it would not, based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy, since he didn't ask for it), you could eliminate, by my count, six of the 14 deletion votes. As for keep votes, I don't actually see the word "keep" in bold in anywhere in this discussion. Based off reading the discussion itself, I'll give you two votes. Which makes it 8 (14) to 2 for deletion.
Further, based on an unscientific straw poll of the NS IRC channel (~45 people at any given time), only 1 (other than the moderators that had dealt with the situation and the NSWiki Moderators) had actually heard of Eire Shamrock before. Most of those people have been playing nationstates for nearly two years, I myself for over two and a half, and a good percentage of those people have played since the very beginning of the game in November/December 2002. I think that's a good reason to fail at notability, even if anyone outside NS cared. It means that other than the people directly involved, it affected no one. Even more, verifiablity is a joke, based off the definition Wiki uses. The only way to verify this would be through original research, which eliminates "encyclopedic" as well.. It is not published anywhere by a reputable publisher. And yeah, the vanity thing too. Now, I've already voted so don't count this as another vote if my IP is different. And wow, what a nice personal attack on Sirithil while I was writing this. --129.59.26.71 19:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no point to this article other than to satisfy the ego of ES's creator, who is not nearly as important to the game of NationStates as he seems to think himself (as stated previously in much more succinct terms). Rulesbreaking and egomania are not, in my opinion, viable criteria for 'immortalization' on a Wiki article. Nor should Wiki be used as a tool for 'sticking it to the man' when one has been rightfully denied in other more appropriate venues. If one wants to go on about themselves at length, rant about the supposed injustice they've suffered etc., one can do so on their online journal or blog. --Nathi's Player
I'm starting to wonder, Celtic1 seems a prime candidate for a block due to vandalism. -- NSLE | Talk 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no longer wondering -- it's fact that all of those vandalising this page should be blocked. This is our page, and your evil comments are not welcome here. Celtic1
- If you want to get pedantic, I created this page. --Goobergunch|? 21:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm a freak from the woodwork... the woodwork is a pretty darn busy place. Nobody has voted to keep this article. --Sirithil 04:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, I never asked anyone to come here to vote to keep this, unlike Goobergunch who has used terrorist tactics like he threatened above. "I could quite easily get most of the NationStates IRC channel to support deletion". The proof is all there.
To say that your votes against this article do not count in reality is putting it mildly. Criminals, felons, cannot vote in elections, so this vote is a farce and is not accepted by anyone other than a few demented criminals. Celtic1
- Goober never asked anyone else to come here either. Such blatantly false accusations do you no favours. Had he actually done what you so blythely accuse him of, there would not be simply a few interested parties posting their opinions here, but dozens. I believe he has in fact asked that people NOT bombard the page so as to give it a more fair shake. So much for 'criminal' behaviour. The only farce I see in action here is the fact that you are allowed to continue posting such drivel after having proved yourself to be a vandal with no interest in meaningful contribution to Wikipedia aside from slandering others and drawing undue attention to yourself with an inaccurate vanity article. You have a personal site where you can post whatever fantasies you please - use it. This is not the place for personal vendetta against those you feel have treated you unfairly. Truth will out, they say. It would seem you're proving their point for them with all these ridiculous antics. (Admins - how long must the character attacks continue?) --Nathi's Player
Such ridiculous assertions do his cause no good. It is clear to all and sundry that this is an evil, albeit well planned smear campaign designed by Goobergunch.
One look at his comments here, the very fact that he is the one that took the time to start this deletion campaign, as well as his threat to garner external support point to only one thing -- and that is plainly the wicked and disturbing plot hatched by Goobergunch. Clearly he has succeeded in his threat of gathering lunatics to support his demented campaign, and that is sad as it is against the spirit of Wikipedia.
Look at other articles that are up for deletion -- do they have as many comments? Nowwhere close, so the overwhelming evidence that this is a planned, premeditated campaign by a gang of criminals and brigands is plain to see. If Wikipedia were truly for freedom, this article would be kept. If this article is taken down due to this demonic campaign, then all hope is lost for the world. Shame on all those that have voted for deletion, you are partially at fault for all other problems in the universe we can only assume.
It is more than safe to assume that most of the people writing here are doing so from prison, as they are brigands and criminals of the highest order. Truth has already outed your sick cause -- and stop the deceit, as everyone here knows the truth. We posted a nice little article here, and Goobergunch, to settle an old vendetta, decided to launch this bizarre and unfounded campaign against it. Truly insane, and shame on you for propagandizing on his behalf. Celtic1
- I'm glad to know that I'm responsible for all evil in the universe. Please take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, most of the comments on this page have been your own, and I've seen far worse VfD/AfD debates - this doesn't even come close to the level of contention on the most vicious debates. Most AfD debates are short because it's a noncontroversial yet nonspeedy deletion. --Goobergunch|? 19:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more than safe to assume that most of the people writing here are doing so from prison, as they are brigands and criminals of the highest order.
Heeheeheeheeheeheehee! Editing from prison, I love it! This is the best AFD troll ever. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Grrr. As if all this wasn't bad enough, Celtic1 has since taken to vandalising the Jennifer Government: NationStates page with this same business, too. This United State 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Me and Goobergunch ad a few helpful anonymous users have been reverting it. I'm starting to wonder if it needs a lock. -- NSLE | Talk 09:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's time to report Celtic1 on WP:VIP. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.