Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceciliantas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ceciliantas was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE (having discounted the multiple sockpuppet votes on either side)

Not notable. --fvw* 04:12, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

  • Delete junk. Cdc 04:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gwimpey 05:07, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • del. Mikkalai 05:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. utcursch 09:50, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No useful content. Andrewa 16:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to vote here, (mainly because I'd have to make an account). But please note this has become famous on the internet. I found this from Fark, but as I understand it, it's drawn attention from all sorts of sites. I suggest a clean-up.

The fark thread is at http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1271835 . It has a link to the relevant thread, if you decide to keep this topic. This is a piece of internet history, at least as famous as All Your Base Are Belong To Us, or Homestarr Runner, which both have Wiki entries (Please note that the last sentence was added by a different person later. To say that it is bigger than either of those two is absurd.)

Comment: All unsigned comments on VfD are absurd, 220.240.179.85 and 220.240.179.187, there's little chance that experienced Wikipedians will regard them as anything but amusement value, inconvenience, or a bit of both. But comments signed by anons are fine. Please sign your posts, and I hope you had a nice Christmas. Andrewa 18:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fifteen minutes of e-fame is not what Wikipedia is about. Technogeek 20:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to discuss what wikipedia is about. And it may be 15 minutes of fame. But the vfd was put up because of it's notability, and this is notable.
  • Comment: Thank you for the link. Please sign your posts, and observe the normal format. Disagree regarding notability, as we use the term. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not notable in the encyclopedic sense, and not likely to become so either. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup It's notable because it's famous. Certanly it's a story that pretty much everyone knows about by now from the guys in WOW to the Hello Kitty forums and recetly to Usenet. --Rastilin 04:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Please sign your posts, User:Rastilin. I notice this vote is your only edit to date. Have you contributed anonymously, before this? Andrewa 14:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Apologies for my oversight, I generally edit things without logging on since my connection from School is being monitored by the administration. --Rastilin 04:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. It's at least as notable as half the things linked to from internet phenomenon. taion 05:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. This page is roughly as valuable as the page for Star Wars Kid, and denotes the exact same thing--someone makes an ass of themselves, and compounds it with behaviour that incites a worldwide flamefest. It really is an internet phenomenon, with all the hallmarks. JJ 07:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has now improved a great deal, and while it still doesn't IMO establish notability it has me wondering. The question in my mind is: Is this article merely an attempt to spread this story further (a task which many people obviously have found a source of much amusement), or does it also describe an encyclopedic current event? No change of vote, not yet anyway. Andrewa 14:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cecilier, speedied once and now on VfD, contributed by three different anons in all. That doesn't make it a phenomenon, just a fad, but it's hard to draw the line. I think that we should err on the side of caution here, to reduce the danger of Wikipedia being used by these faddists for their hobby. Andrewa 20:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Cecilier warrants deletion for redundancy if nothing else, since it really is just a reference to the same thing. Anyway, this is spreading fairly quickly among the internet gaming community, and it's still spreading fairly quickly. I'm willing to bet that in a week or two, it'll be as well-known as badger badger badger was in its prime. Deleting it now as a fad would be a tad hasty. taion 00:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this crap. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:17, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Keep, as the article has been cleaned up a lot further since my earlier vote and seems a bit more worth having. Technogeek 04:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - --Elix 08:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Assuming it is a fad isn't that worth recording for the future? An encyclopedia is supposed to retain information of past events, with over 300,000 readers it is becoming very notable. --Rastilin 11:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I note that you have already voted above. Perhaps this could have been made clearer? No change of vote. Andrewa 04:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Not every random internet event should be an entry. datl
  • Keep just as good as AYB.
  • Keep
  • Cleanup. Hey everyone, long time Wikipedia reader, first time poster. This event is massive, very much worth keeping, however the article in its present form is a very loose account of the event. If you go to the Fark thread mentioned above, and search in the page for posts from "akarand", "kesherz", and "ciberido", they've provided excellent "Cliff's Notes" versions of how it all went down, which should be incorporated into the article. --Plasmadis 23:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Plasmadis, I notice that this remains your only contribution to Wikipedia. -- Hoary 03:47, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
    • Comment: Whoa, a whole 2 days have passed since my initial posting (not to mention yesterday was Christmas), and I still have yet to make my name known far and wide throughout the esteemed Wikipedia community. Man, tough crowd here! --Plasmadis 23:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hyped non-event. -- Hoary 06:13, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. This is just as valuable a piece of internet culture and history as AYB or the Wazzap craze. Admittedly this particular instance is not as far-reaching or powerful as those movements however it should be cleaned up and kept as any part of history should. Such an event, if recorded properly (hence the cleanup vote) would be a great 'slide' in what could be called Intarweb 101 for all the non-geeks out there. --Superslash (hope i did that right)
    • Comment: Quite right, but do be as brief as possible. I also notice this is your first contribution, so it won't carry much weight. But welcome! Andrewa 03:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. As strange as this whole event is, it raises some interesting issues about MMORPG's, specifically gamers who use MMORPG's for sexual activities and online (or in-game) relationships. This is an intereting documentation of how the internet can be used, and what can result from it. That said, this page needs to be developed more. --Echidnae 02:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think what this page still lacks is hard data. We are told that the story spread rapidly and later that it spread like wildfire, but there are no figures as to the time this took, or of the number of posts to the individual threads and forums mentioned. At the risk of arguing from the silence, I suspect that the article's authors and supporters don't know or care. They are part of this claimed phenomenon, and in no position to assess it or motivated to try to. It has sucked them in (and many others). Prove me wrong, put some verifiable, attributed data into the article, supporting the hype. Then and only then I'll change my vote. Andrewa 04:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Pardon my oversimplification, but "Prove that there's excitement, and we'll grant that it's worthy of encyclopedic coverage" seems weak. Let's have the URLs of discussions of this Amazing Phenomenon in some sites that don't normally deal with such gossip. ("All Your Bases Are Belong To Us" would have passed that test.) Meanwhile, what is this about, really? The article seems to insinuate that our hero was surreptitiously photographed wanking while playing the game, and that photos (edited, natch) were distributed. My reaction: big wanking deal. If indeed "This event is massive", as alleged above, it suggests to me that the players must be desperate for things to talk about, making it perhaps deserving of a part-paragraph in some article on the psychopathology of online gaming. And if indeed "Ceciliantas replied with a number of threats of both in-game retaliation and real-life legal action" then let's wait for the real-life legal action to become, well, real-life. -- Hoary 05:10, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree with what you said. The problem I see with this whole thing is that most of the "hard facts" are scattered throughout 23+ pages of the original thread. The thread has now over 370,000 views and 1131+ replies, as you can see here. There is also a thread in those same forums that is dedicated to where people have been linked to it (What sites did Cecil's cyber thread make it to?). As you pointed out in a reply to my vote above, I have only contributed so far to this page under this username. I have contributed before at Wikipedia, but I recently decided to create a username after reading through your comments to someone else about posting without a username. And judging by the reply to my comment above, you sound suspicious about my intentions here. I don't blame you for thinking that, but that is not what I am trying to do here, and I did not get "sucked in" by all this. I'm not a long time user of Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with the ettequite here a great deal, but I do realize that people like you have more say about what is acceptable here than I do. I have also been around here months before this whole Ceciliantas thing took place. I am not trying to "support" the hype, although this page may lean towards that. Anyway, you know more about this place than I do, so your word is better than mine. --Echidnae 05:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Please see User talk:Echidnae for my replies. Andrewa 15:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: Although it seems that voting is over and the page has been kept... I'd like to show the following explaination of the set-up as told by bobmarle. Da Post If you read through it (and if you are using Firefox you can block out the images stretching the page), you'll see why this became so famous. Corporal 17:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment: The vote is about to close, certainly, but it hasn't yet AFAIK, and it appears to me we may have a sufficient consensus to delete. Saying something is famous doesn't always make it happen (I imagine it's a great feeling of power when it does). Andrewa 21:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of long-term noteworthiness. —Korath会話 11:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-event. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your opinion it is a non even, and a flimsy opinion it is. Some might say that "all your base" was a non-issue too--but arent you by extension saying that internet trends are inherently non-issues by saying so? ... posted anonymously on 27 December by Jimmyjimjam -- his/her first ever contribution to Wikipedia

  • Keep!
  • Comment: What I find funny is that this VfD page is 2nd on the Google Search for this term. Surely the whole thing is overblown... Ambush Commander 02:58, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup It's a current event and deserves to be here. It's not much different from, say, a story about a celebrity's cheating on a spouse. Corporal 06:34, Dec 27 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: The vote of Corporal (who seems only to have contributed to one other article) moved here from the top. Corporal, how is "a story about a celebrity's cheating on a spouse" encyclopedic? (National Enquirer material, yes.) -- Hoary 06:48, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
      • Comment: Well, you got me there. However, being as how this person is now famous regardless, doesn't he deserve an entry of his own? This is, after all, a free, user-edited encyclopedia on the Internet, and if the users feel that this person has gained enough fame to have an informative, pseudo-encyclopediatic summary/timeline of the events pertaining to him posted, then we should allow this page to be kept, or at least cleaned up. Corporal 06:59, Dec 27 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment: I question your premiss that he's famous. -- Hoary 07:33, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as this database covers topics like AYB and other essentially meaningless phenomenon, Ceciliantas deserves his space. No, it's not the moon landing or anything of that magnitude, but it is still significant. Sauzer 7:09, Dec 26 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is the only contribution of Sauzer to Wikipedia so far. Well, Sauzer, AYB is indeed just about as meaningless as "Ceciliantas", but AYB was a genuine (if silly) "phenomenon"; whereas, as Ambush Commander points out, "Ceciliantas" is an extremely minor "phenomenon", possibly now centering on this very web page. -- Hoary 07:24, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
      • Comment: And who are you to determine whether or not this will remain a minor phenomenon? It's already shown up on thousands of forums and even SomethingAwful, and it could easily turn into an ongoing joke much like Star Wars Kid or AYB. Also, stop pointing out single-contribution users. Sauzer used the correct syntax, leave him alone. Corporal 17:29, Dec 27 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment: See my replies at User talk:Echidnae to similar concerns he raised. Pointing out single-contribution users is a welcome timesaver for others, and especially useful to the admin who will soon need to sort this all out. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Comment: But pointing out single-contribution users does not make comments any more or less valid. In fact, it puts your own wisdom into question for judging others comments based on that. King Bahamut 23:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Comment: reality check: when an administrator comes to tally up the votes, he/she pays little or no value to those of first-time and single-issue voters. Again, the only contributions of "King Bahamut" have been to this one article and its VfD page. Incidentally I've no objection whatever to having my wisdom questioned. Go ahead, question it. Meanwhile, my intuition says Sock puppets! -- Hoary 01:54, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
          • Keep I'm sure I've remember seeing far more useless entries remain, so if everyone is not willing to clean up the whole site of those entries, this should stay - besides, it is already being used as a proper noun in reference to the thread and background story, so it is fitting that it should have an entry. King Bahamut 23:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep This thing has spread like wildfire across the net. It deserves a page. Revolos55 20:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment Why am I not surprised to discover that this is the sole contribution of "Revolos55"? -- Hoary 01:54, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Comment user 137.201.242.130 has now twice deleted the VFD tag. I'm still new around here, but I'm guessing he's not supposed to be doing that? Shouldn't it stay there so people will see it and get a chance to vote? --Plasmadis 02:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ceciliantas&oldid=1086060208"