Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver-free
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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. Golbez 04:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Vancouver-free[edit]
Ad for IRC channel for Vancouverites. This would really stretch the limits of noteworthiness, and the profanity is disappointing. Delete. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an ad for a channel. It is a demonstration of a different way of running a channel with a very diff philosophy behind it's beginnings and how it works. The profanity is a result of the freedom allowed in the channel and was inserted in the topic as a warning to the sensitive viewers. It needs more content but I do not feel deltion is the solution! Keep --TheSimkin 20:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
- This is not an ad; it is a piece on a place. Places can be on the internet, in the mind, in the world, etc. An ad is trying to convince people of the fitness of something for some purpose. Exactly what purpose is being put forward for Vancouver-Free? Vancouver-Free is a part of our heritage as Canadians, so if this is an international project, I'd worry about potentially racist exclusions. 24.84.212.100.
- The point is that this IRC channel must become well-known as an embodiment of freedom, a Canadian cultural icon, or whatnot before it merits a Wikipedia article. PlatypeanArchcow 22:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just because I'm offended at being called a racist because this nonnotable article needs to be deleted. RickK 20:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Who called whom a racist? There was the idea that perhaps this is a piece of Canadiana and therefore is subject to different standards for cultural appropriateness. If Wikipedia is something that's supposed to galvanize American culture and make it appear as though there are no alternatives, that is of course valid. Vancouver-Free is the embodiment of freedom, and so there may be cultural problems accepting what it is... 24.84.212.100.
- Delete. We don't have articles on every non-notable IRC channel out there. Also be aware that anonymous votes are not considered in the vfd process. ESkog 21:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would anyone lower himself to vote in an election like this? Anyone who shows up to the "Should we kill everyone's favourite nigger" poll---even to note "no"---has some issues. 24.84.212.100.
- Comment: RE: "We don't have aritcles on every non-notable IRC Channel out there". I do not beleive it's fair to dismiss an article based on the fact that other articles like it do not exist. The question is weather this article has any merit. I think as an example of a random group of people discussing ideas without restrictions the channel and the wikipedia page should be saved. At very least, this article is brand new and should be given some time (a few weeks) to grow and expand. --TheSimkin 21:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
- Please register your misgivings elsewhere. If a lot of people who have edited on Wikipedia for a while think this article is not worth keeping then it will be deleted. I understand your frustration at having your cherished work removed, but Wikipedia cannot have an article on every IRC channel out there. IRC channels become noteworthy when Osama hangs out there, it is cited extensively in newspapers or is the vehicle of celebrity adultery. Until then, you cannot insist on Wikipedia keeping this article. JFW | T@lk 21:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was the location for posting misgivings regarding having a page deleted? I do not insist or want to force anyone to keep this page. I just feel that it's content is useful and relative (and will be more so if given time to grow). I disagree strongly that a channel becomes important because someone famous is in the channel. It is a place of open discussion of ideas. This is why it is important and deserves a place on wikipedia. --TheSimkin 21:57, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
- No, this is where you vote. It's the numbers that count, unless someone votes for a reason and you can prove with evidence that this reason is incorrect. Wikipedia has certain rules for notability. Even if Brad Pitt were to use vancouver-free, this would not make the channel notable unless a major scandal brewed on there. On Wikipedia:Importance you will find some examples of what are reasons for inclusion in Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please register your misgivings elsewhere. If a lot of people who have edited on Wikipedia for a while think this article is not worth keeping then it will be deleted. I understand your frustration at having your cherished work removed, but Wikipedia cannot have an article on every IRC channel out there. IRC channels become noteworthy when Osama hangs out there, it is cited extensively in newspapers or is the vehicle of celebrity adultery. Until then, you cannot insist on Wikipedia keeping this article. JFW | T@lk 21:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - heads up for a flood of new members from this channel - the current topic on the channel is 'You guys. Create accounts and do some wikiing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver-free'. ESkog 22:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rules-free channels are nothing unusual. --Carnildo 22:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete totally not notable, advert, spam. To our, uh, new users, I'd like to point out the following policy, which appears at the top of our VfD pages: Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. In other words, if you came here just to vote on this, don't bother, it won't count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I am Canadian, and I'm an inclusionist voter on Votes for deletion. This is a self-admitted attempt to use Wikipedia as a free web host to promote something, and something that would not yet inspire someone outside the very small online community to write or want an encyclopedia article otherwise. I vote delete; come back - with the article; I'm not telling any user personally to go away! - if you start getting prominently featured in the Straight or the Sun or so on. With respect, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not... Samaritan 01:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Spinboy 04:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verifiable proof of influence or significance is provided (and no, new users saying oh, it's really influential doesn't count). Average Earthman 08:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Influencial to what Level? In this case it has been influencial if in nothing else it has made #vancouver clean up there act and be less facist. This in turn means new people who join #vancouver get a more pleasant and real to life view of what people in Vancouver are really like. I must say that many articles i have read on Wikipedia have not met the critia you guys are asking for. Nor do I think that Brad Pitt is important in any way. According to Wikipedia policy wikipedia is NOT a democracy. So i'm not sure why the few hundred bites this articles would take up must be deleted when some people think it contains useful info, other than you guys don't think it's worthy. I realize the page is going to be deleted now. But I am going to save it make changes to it and do it better and then post it again at a later time. I don't think this is in violation of any of the rules or policies of wikipedia. I'd also like to point out that as an advertising tool this would be extremly week. And there is no reason at all that i would want to use wikipedia to advertise anything. What I did want to do was have it so when someone asks what is #vancouver-free about we could post a link to the vancouver-free home page and to the wikipedia site. --TheSimkin 00:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy, and Wikipedians are advised not to rush into votes everywhere, but what we do ultimately need to reach is consensus. We have (a) an overall consensus that some articles are below the bar, and (b) a lot of judgement calls and differences of opinion about where that bar might be. TheSimkin, if you want to join Wikipedia, I don't think anybody would object to a short introduction to #vancouver-free on your user page, where you can introduce yourself and things that are important to you, mindful of the consensus that you should avoid just using it for "Communications with people uninvolved with the project"... Samaritan 16:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.