Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 of the debate was Deleted --Cyde↔Weys 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

Originally listed as {{

unverified. The prod was removed by the original editor, kindly with an explanation on the article's talk page. I disagree with the editor. I read the slashdot entry prior to adding the prod, and all it is is a reposting of a blog entry. The fact remains is that this article is essentially hearsay about a nn event. I leave it up for consensus whether or not the article should stay. Agent 86 01:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by new editors

Comments listed here are either by IP address, or by editors whose accounts show fewer than ten edits prior to this vote. A large number of "keep" voters have been attracted by website discussing the outside event discussed in the article; that site has run a "keep vote" campaign, or at least participants on its discussion area have.

Users first and currently only edit, hmmm.--Andeh 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The movie Secondhand_Lions has a relevant line in it that goes something to the effect of "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most". “That people are basically good. That honor virtue and courage mean everything; that money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Doesn’t matter if they’re true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing.” Keeping this article doesnt only have to be about how enduring it is, or how rigorously backed up it is. There are sufficient minimums, and there is reasonable argument that they have been met. Mans inhumanity to man is one of the great themes of human history. This article is also about the idea that man should have humanity, and even excellence, toward his fellow man. Engr.student 04:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: vote is user's second edit.[reply]
Perhaps it is too early to say whether this is worthy or not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.178.58 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep I did an initial article for this, but it too was put up for fast deletion. It DOES fit the definition of an internet meme, despite it's short lifespan. I quote from the article on Internet meme - "An Internet phenomenon (sometimes called an Internet meme) occurs when something relatively unknown becomes increasingly popular, often quite suddenly, through the mass propagation of media content made feasible by the Internet; however, the popularity of the phenomenon usually wanes as rapidly as it was acquired"
    Internet phenomenon Smw1983 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's third edit.[reply
    ]
  • Keep just as this guy over here Amir_Tofangsazan I think there might be a real movement starting. It will be very interessting to see how the different countries (UK/USA) judiciary system handle theses kind of cases. --HamstaHuey 08:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users second edit.--Andeh 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with the idea that this is a good example of how quickly internet phenomenon can take off and how much of an effect the virtual world can have on the real one. This, when finally resolved, will be an interesting case study in viral marketing and social networking, to say the least. Logick 05:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: this vote is user's first edit.[reply]
  • Strong Keep From the Wiki entry on Encyclopedia:'Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.' If this is not an excellent example of the power of Internet Vigilantism then what is? The article should be kept and perhaps made a subarticle of I.V., same as 'Dog Poop Girl.' CitizenJ 8:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's first edit.
Users first edit and sounds like he's been here for some time, hmm...--Andeh 13:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this afd discussion has a lot of keeps from totally new users, how suspicious.--Andeh 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How unusual... Yanksox 13:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note First edit from new user. Fan1967 03:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was eye witness to 2 of the forum crashes and I felt strongly enough that this article should stay for now, that I joined. true_blue2 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I continue to see posts from people that have absolutely no involvement with what is happening refer to this as a non-event. Well, of course people that are not involved and don't understand technology will say such things. The fact of the matter is this is not a Slashdot-only event. Sure, it gained widespread coverage as a result of postings on Digg and Slashdot, but this is becoming a worldwide event. People from all over the world are taking part in the fight for someone to get stolen property back to its rightful owners. I would suggest that if you do not understand technology, do not understand the Internet and its potential, that you do not post your opinion here. So many opinions are from people that obviously have no idea what they are talking about.--Thenet411 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is user's third edit.[reply]
  • Comment Yet another example of someone that has no idea what they are talking about. This is my first vote on the matter. Others were simply comments. Learn the difference.--Thenet411 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thenet, the comment was not that this was your third vote, but that it was your third edit. It's common policy on high-traffic AFD's to tag votes by very new users. And Lulu, who added that comment, definitely does know what he's talking about. -- Vary | Talk 17:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like Charlie Wenzel and others(such as this sidekick thing) will keep bombarding Wiki, Keep it, make a category for it. Hell, if the ever so important topic of light-saber combat can have a bigger spread than Thermodynamic, I think you can make room for this and Charlie Wenzel. --Brady 07:45 PST, 9 June, 2006
    • Comment The above comment was posted by IP 66.245.195.72, the first posting from this IP.--blue520 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. This is not my first posting on a discussion page. I've never felt the need to register as a Wiki-user. My first comments were well over a year ago on a couple of different pages. Thank you. --Brady, 08:40 PST 9 June, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.213.120 (talk • contribs)
  • Blue said that it was the first edit from the IP you were using, not from you as an individual. If you don't have a user account, the only thing we have to go on is your current IP's contribution history. -- Vary | Talk 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The abnormal popularity of this event online (with coverage on Slashdot, Digg, CNET's blog, MSNBC's blog, and countless others) and how it is a great example of internet vigilantism should merit a keep for now, espicially now that the article focuses more on the event rather than the website. I agree with RoyBoy's view on the matter as well. Full disclosure: This is my first edit, but I've joined (shortly) before this article was created. AirwalkLogik 06:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Shows the power of the internet and its infancy. Reminds me of mobs justice in the early parts of our country and I am interested if others are about to start up and how this develops further as the internet progresses. --Cowhig 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's (ten) edits are entirely to his/her own userpage- this vote is the first one outside of that. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has created his account well before the creation of the article in dispute and even before the disputed website was created. Give the benefit of doubt? -- Evanx(tag?) 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by established editors

  • Delete per nom. This is a classic example of what I complain about people or incidents that have 15-minutes of fame, momentary notoriety. 70.94.46.69 01:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • oops, the above was by me. I visited the diggs site and it locked up my browser, so I ended up force-quitting. Tychocat 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't think even the strongest supporter of
    Internet Memes would argue that a two-day-old one has established itself. Fan1967 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment For a two day meme this[1] is an awful lot of google hits. Yanksox 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I even agreed with this sentiment until today, when I saw that the episode was written up in the New York Times and CNet. With the unprecedented press attention, this is an obvious keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom; I not only believe in the test of Time, I don't think any Internet meme should be put up for an article sooner than a year after its creation; then let people make the argument as to whether anyone still cares enough about it to be encyclopedic.
    RGTraynor 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete The original website serves as record enough of this event. Hanako 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Move — I've been following this since near the beginning, and I think it's fascinating, but ultimately unencyclopedic. Perhaps better suited to WikiNews — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  June 9, 2006, 02:26 (UTC)
Perhaps Move is what you meant? -- Evanx(tag?) 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Move seem appropos. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  June 9, 2006, 03:45 (UTC)
Would you be changing your vote? -- Evanx(tag?) 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Just did.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  June 13, 2006, 23:56 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. same sentiments as Fan-1967. Very important now doesn't mean very important 5 days later. Frankchn 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the original editor of the entry and read the incident on Slashdot. I had included it here as documenting a current event. In fact, compared to other
    Ellen Feiss, Old Grandma Hardcore and Katilce Miranda. -- Evanx(tag?) 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not positive. How many of them will be remembered? I say, at most, 4. Yanksox 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I am rubbing off poorly, I'm not upset or leaning towards deletion or closure. I think it's funny how we define a phemon. Yanksox 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to delete a lot of these examples also, with the obvious exceptions of Lazy Sunday and William Hung. GassyGuy 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably keep the star wars kid, too, but not the rest. That's the problem with these fads. They're mostly going to need cleanup later when they're forgotten. Fan1967 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The p-P-P-Powerbook article was created over a year after the incident, when it was clear the story had lasted. Fan1967 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWho cares, there are over a million articles. Behun 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Hardly encyclopedic or newsworthy. We don't put up stories about every single site that gets slashdotted or dug, nor do we have stories about everyday thefts - as much as I admire the guts of the guy who stood up to the thieves, this should not be on Wikipedia. --ElizabethFong 04:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article really places us in a VERY deep quagmire. I do think the article was put up a little too quickly by the author. If we delete this page, I honestly believe we have a good chance of this coming back up, since I believe a news source is eventually going to notice this. If we keep this, we would appear to contradict all of our previous debates. I think a delete is the safest decision, while we wait and see what happens of this. Yanksox 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its just not noteworthy enough. If people still remember this in a month there might be something about it worth having an article for. Shogun 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nobody said it doesn't fit the definition of an Internet meme. I think everyone agrees that it does (though I must admit, I first heard of it because of the Wikipedia article being put up for deletion.) However, the question here is, does this meet the requirements of
      WP:MEME? While this one may, at some future date, meet the requirements, at this point it really doesn't seem able to do so, which is why it would be best to delete this now and wait an appropriate amount of time. GassyGuy 05:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete. If this is still this huge in a few weeks (particularly after it is resolved), then there is probaby noteworthy.--SirNuke 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is deleted and this does rise up through the ranks, there is a very simple solution: It can be recreated. Obviously, someone will tag it as a repost. But if notability is there, I will defend it. You have my word. Yanksox 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The
    deadkid_dk 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete If anyone remembers this two months from now perhaps it can be re-added. It won't be. Artw 06:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The sheer interest shown by thousands (or more) of internet denizens make this a noteworthy event. Whether or not it has staying power will be discivered down the road. I strongly suggest Keep for now, at least until its staying power can be determined. It can always be removed later. Therebelcountry 06:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. I actually read the source page via its slashdot link, before ever knowing it was on WP. But a couple days isn't enough for an internet meme; maybe if it turns into another "all your bases" after a couple months, someone can write a new article with the advantage of hindsight on how it evolves. But for now it's far too flash-in-the-pan. Note, BTW, that it appears that essentally every keep vote is from a brand new user; presumably attracted here via offiste links on the "how not to steal" website. LotLE×talk 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, maybe next time. --
    e Ong 07:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete As of now, is not notable according to
    WP:MEME. SubSeven 08:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete verifiability problems
    WP:RS.--blue520 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete should be kept to its respective sites only, and likely verifibiability problems. --Arnzy (whats up?) 09:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It smacks of a money-generating hoax. I can't see one verifiable fact here, either. Its purpose in an encyclopedia is what, exactly. --whqttt
  • Delete. Little more than a forum in-joke. JIP | Talk 10:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Inner Earth 11:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I can't believe that this is something people should remember in the history of the world for years to come! Somebody stole a Sidekick, so what? Thousands of people crashed a few internet forums, so what? I think the world will be the same without this, I really do. Leave the record to remain on personal websites, NOT in an encyclopedia. Hanako 11:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny site... great fodder for a blog. Still, 2 days does not a meme make. If this is still around and being referenced in 6 months I will probably feel differently. Here's hoping "i got ball this is my adress 108 20 37 av corona come n do it iam give u the sidekick so I can hit you wit it" becomes the new All your base are belong to us.--Isotope23 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and categorize... This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened and it won't be the last. Why is each one treated like a--OMG "special case", we're shocked, shocked--why not just create a category for unfolding internet fad stories, nobody will dispute sticking it in that category, and when the dust settles there is a nice--encyclopedic even--record and it can be disposed of. Brassrat
  • Delete completely non-notable, carnivorous socks aside - Peripitus (Talk) 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Believe you are right there Peripitus.--Andeh 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, notability first... then create an article -- bloggerel and mindless link propagation can sod off. Never mind arguments like "I think it might be picked up by the papers soon." We are not in the business of predicting notability. If becomes notable outside of a few incestuous gossipy websites... then add it. Until that happens, every time some misguided newbie recreates it, wel'll keep smacking it on the head and dragging it to the exit. Any other choice is just an open door policy for crap. - Motor (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no need for getting more attention with the help of Wikipedia. --
    -> 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Well, I said it would be soon for mainstream. This isn't exactly mainstream but it's something, I guess. I'm still sitting on delete for now[2]. Yanksox 17:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Nonencyclopedic as a (popular, but ultimately) flash-in-the-pan subject. Obviously, not all memes (or pop-culture items) need withstand the hundred-year test, but this is far too short-notice and limited in its scope. Is there a better method, barring a by-year List of popular YouTube videos, for handling these fifteen-minutes-of-fame items? Maybe. But I'm not suggesting anything. Regardless, delete for now. -- Docether 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now; if it becomes notable later, it can easily be recreated (possibly including undeletion of the page history). --cesarb 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. If it turns out to be verifiably true, it would certainly be notable, although not necessarily significant enough to warrant its own page. If it turns out to be a hoax, I think the Wikipedia would be better served by discouraging hoaxsters from attempting to gain personal notoriety by "attention-whoring" their way into the Wikipedia. Jzerocsk 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. MaxSem 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverifiable, etc... Wickethewok 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverifiable, nn, lousy name.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan-1967, Isotope23, Docether and everyone else who made the same point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My original vote seems to have been lost in the moving process... this is a repost of it: *Delete per nom. GassyGuy 01:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)" GassyGuy 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I must have made an error while moving things around. Please forgive my offense, GassyGuy. LotLE×talk 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, it takes a lot more than an organizational oversight to get me upset. Think nothing of it. GassyGuy 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per Agent 86. Not a notable news item. --Starionwolf 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for today. If this is still a big deal six months from now, then it's a different story. Also, pity the poor admin who closes this one.
    ScottW 01:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 03:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thought I already voted delete for this. Its obviously a fast appearing internet meme. Its the kind of thing that rapidly appears, then goes poof when the next one hits. Cannot guarentee that it will stay where it is. Can be recreated if this stays in the mind for a long time a la p-p-p-owerbook!!
    Kevin_b_er 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete non notable, unable to verify, unencyclopedic.--Dakota ~ 06:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should probably be smerged with a larger article on internet vigilantism (along with stuff like Dog poop girl, since it's becoming a relatively common occurrance, and there are good sources available on the trend (like this article in the New York Times). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - are we going to add an article for every single website that reaches the front page of Digg or Slashdot? --Boxflux 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, it is too soon to accurately gauge its notability; which as far as I can tell is going through the roof. CNET.com mention Deleting now is entirely unnecessary and rash. - RoyBoy 800 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some might argue that it is too soon to accurately gauge its notability, and creating now is entirely unnecessary and rash. Fan1967 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, for now. That ignores Wikipedia's strengths. Such as our long tail; also Wikipedia is not paper. I can also guarantee the article will be recreated by good faith new users; making this entire exercise ludicrously premature. Changing my vote as a result... a deleted article isn't the best way to introduce new people to Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 800 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I was sitting on the fence with this one, as it has recieved coverage in not just Slashdot but Cnet and MSNBC. But what pushed me towards delete was that the subject of the article is the website, not the incident itself. And being an encylopedia, we have to look at what's gonna be noteworthy five or ten years from now. And while the incident might merit a stub or at least a mention in another article in five years, there's no reason to believe that the website will even still be online by then. And the whole thing seems to me like it's really just a whole hulla-balu about nothing. Somebody picked up someone's cell-phone - who cares?! ENpeeOHvee 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Although the article is regarding the website, it was meant to convey the influence of internet vigilantism and present a valid case. Hence, the focus is indeed the incident, but you may have miscontrued it. It may be my fault in phrasing the article, I am continually trying to edit it for acceptable standards. -- Evanx(tag?) 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very strongly. This is all over the internet, apparently. Everyking 05:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe this will be notable under
    WP:MEME in a year or so, nn at the moment. --Tim1988 talk 16:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete I don't think it will ever be that notable. SYSS Mouse 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non-notable cruft relating to the sort of non-event that some bloggers seem to become obsessed with. Frankly, there are more notable minor shoplifting offences. Whether it's all over the internet or not is irrelevant; huge quantities of rubbish are all over the internet. -- Necrothesp 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non notable. Not of any relevance now, definitely not of any relevance in a week or a month never mind further in the future. So it's all over the internet, so what? Not even remotely encyclopaedic. As Necrothesp has said there are more notable minor shoplifting offenses and other crimes and they're not here. My home was broken into once but I don't think that deserves a mention on Wikipedia (other than here obviously). Ben W Bell talk 09:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was that reported in The New York Times, too? Everyking 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hundreds of thousands of articles are published in newspapers each day. We can't write an article on every little insignificant thing that ever happens. --Cyde↔Weys 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, it's way too new, and secondly, it's not terribly original. It might eventually belong as a section of a larger article on internet vigilantism. Sxeptomaniac 17:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Ragib 17:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with article Internet Vigilantism. Just a thought. Elijya 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This was picked up by James Lileks' Daily Bleats on the first day. Whether or not this is "important" five or six years or now is up to people editing this page then - might as well kick it up to them. At any rate the first draft coverage of this "event" will likely have some value in excess of what this was all about. -- Entered by Franny Wentzel at 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable. Every day various little stupid things on the Internet are becoming "popular" - and then everyone forgets about them just as quickly. We're writing a long-term encyclopedia, not a short-term online meme tracker. --Cyde↔Weys 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least until it can be determined the durability of this article. I think it is too early to determine if this is just a flash-in-the-pan. - Tεxτurε 17:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Merge with Internet vigilantism as suggested above. Internet vigilantism could easily detail much of this event and the others listed there without growing too large. If a better example came along it could replace this one. - Tεxτurε 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ephemeral news item of limited relevance. FreplySpang 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Internet vigilantism article or keep, so long as the content is retained. Silensor 18:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - Either keep the article as-is, or merge it as a sub-page of the Internet vigilantism page. As it stands, the article in question may be too long to merge with the Internet vigilantism article proper, hence the suggestion of "merge as subpage". --SpecOp Macavity 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would see the merge into Internet vigilantism to also include a reduction in size to something more appropriate for the overall article. A subpage would be ok, though. - Tεxτurε 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's wait 6 months. If people still remember it, I wouldn't mind it's use as an example in Internet vigilantism, but I can't see how this incident would be worthy of an article itself. ~MDD4696 02:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per most of above. -^
    [yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /14:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments - Discussion

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_NOT_to_steal_a_SideKick_2&oldid=1143864013"