Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Despite promises, reliable sources never appeared. If they do exist let me know and I will undelete. W.marsh 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Mayhem

General Mayhem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Web forum that doesn't seem to meet WP:V or WP:WEB. I asked for some sources on the talk page and they didn't seem to know of any. Delete as failing WP:V and/or WP:WEB. Wickethewok 08:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, it looks like by far the most active web forum I've seen. JIP | Talk 09:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources are cited to assert notability per
  Kavadi carrier 10:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, but weak. Sounds like a version of Something Awful. If they've done something amazingly different with their membership, then there might be an argument. humblefool® 02:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Already came up for deletion, back in the stone age, as "Genmay" (see
  Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Genmay). Appears to have never been closed, though. Curious... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. No reliable sources at the moment means no notability. We've deleted forum articles with similar (or higher) activity. Though, this is a pretty large forum compared to many that currently (and unfortunately) have articles. --- RockMFR 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one of the largest forums existing --Macarion 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons Macarion stated above. It needs work, not deletion. Comment: "Sounds like a version of Something Awful" -- good thing Something Awful isn't some archetype or prototype or litmus test for relevance, otherwise your comment might have some merit. Something Awful could equally be said to be a "version of" Old Man Murray or Stile Project. Should we delete the Something Awful article too then? Professor Ninja 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyways, I don't think thats the most important issue here. What about sources? Meeting
  WP:V is not optional. Wickethewok 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No, it's not the most important issue, but it's been brought up as an issue nonetheless. I know you're delete-crazy Wicket, but removing an entire article and giving the people who will fulfill

WP:V absolutely nothing to work with is totally counter-productive. The size of Genmay is easily verifiable through big boards. The rest of the material of the article is the structure of the forums and the administration of them -- do you honestly expect such a ridiculous litmus test to be applied that forum subgroups and her administrators be published in a known periodical simply to satisfy all aspects of WP:V? Verifiability is important, but there are limits to it. These are sane, common sense limits. We don't troll every article and question whether paraphrases used the definite or indefinite article, because its nonsense, because things as fluid and vague as that are verifiable in so far as you can check up on them yourself, but pegging down the exactness of it is nigh impossible. Should we exclude who admins the forums because Time magazine has never mentioned them? Professor Ninja 08:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• I would suggest you tone down some of your wordings. "delete-crazy" and "troll" can be seen as inflammatory and an assumption of bad faith. Wickethewok 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So could deliberately "misunderstanding" the use of the word troll to make it go from the very obvious in-context meaning of trolling in the sense of dragging a net vs. the "how could you possibly think it means that in the context given" meaning of deliberately attempting to incite a flame war. Now since I have demonstrable example of bad faith from you, perhaps you could explain how "delete-crazy" is bad faith? I'm sure any RfC would want to know. Professor Ninja 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If I misunderstood your comment, I apologize. In any case, I suggest that we stick to the subject at hand (General Mayhem). Whatever problems you have with me can be discussed elsewhere, such as my talk page. Wickethewok 08:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll cite some sources right now. --

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.