Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meow Wars (0th nomination)

Add links
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 a historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.


Meow Wars

[edit]

Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 23:52, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 23:52, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, self-important vanity. Rje 00:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Even I'd heard of this flamewar and seen first hand its long-lasting after effects in groups that weren't even directly involved. So, as Usenet flamewars go, this one must have been pretty notable. P Ingerson 00:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. chocolateboy 01:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Now that's funny. Delete anyway. hfool 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • About as funny and notable as a me. Delete. :: DarkLordSeth 02:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable enough in my book. James F. (talk) 02:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Megan1967 02:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - if we're going to keep the f'n GNAA article, we're damn well going to meow meow Henrietta Pussycat meow. -- Cyrius|✎
  • Delete. King Friday says, "The sole criterion for deletion should be whether the Wikipedia would be improved by deletion." The GNAA, as always, is insignificant, and that they've been able to successfully game the system with regard to "their" article shouldn't have any bearing on other articles. - Nunh-huh 06:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've also heard of this before in forums far removed from the actual events. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are very notable - certainly anyone who frequents Usenet discussions has heard of them. Grue 16:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meelar (talk) 17:05, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Scrat5150 (talk) 17:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 17:34, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable, continually relevant (the 'meowers' keep invading other newsgroups nearly 9 years later), real phenomenon, absolutely Wiki-relevant. The piece needs cleanup and NPOV by an old Usenet wonk. Auto movil 17:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Not voting, because I'm not an impartial observer. There is a lot more to be told in there, and that incident had long term effects on policy and software too. iMeowbot~Mw 19:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. A noteworthy piece of Usenet history deserving of its own article. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ld | talk 00:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already survived VFD before and article has been around for over a year. No valid reason to delete. Norman Rogers\talk 02:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Usenet is not its own microuniverse where important things are done by important people or groups. Usenet is notable, internet history is notable. Events in Usenet history do not seem notable to me even if they go on for a year unless they had some impact in the real world outside of usenet. Indrian 06:57, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, highly notable. This VfD listing is invalid, but it could be worse; at least its not surviving its fifth successive VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 07:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. See comment by iMeowbot. While I would tend to agree with the point raised by Indrian, the incident in question is notable enough. --Viriditas | Talk 11:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Wikipedia is a web guide, to an extent-- c.f. w:Category:Web_comics-- and this is a large piece of USENET history. Ashibaka tlk 23:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A legitimate bit of web history. Denni☯ 03:07, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember seeing this on Usenet in the 90s, and the article has a lot of good information. Most trolling/flaming events are not notable, but this one is. Dave6 05:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this time, keep next time and keep every time it's listed. Imagine, an online encyclopaedia that doesn't consider online phenomena to be notable! Next, the deletionists will have their teeth into 13th century Polish kings, because they didn't have impact on the world outside Poland.Dr Zen 05:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Meow. Work is in progress to deal with NPOV, and some of the effects outside Usenet are slowly finding their way into the piece. Please keep this in mind if you read the article in its current state. Thanks. iMeowbot~Mw 11:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep... —OvenFresh☺ 21:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 22:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, after perhaps merging some of the information to Usenet. Usenet is notable. One of the notable things about it is the number of petty squabbles. Particular squabbles aren't likely to be individually notable. If this is one of the more long-lived and far-reaching squabbles on Usenet, the most it merits is a mention in the Usenet article. Apparently, Usenet just continued, as did the lives of those involved. Just a bunch of kids typing away at night. Nobody got arrested; nobody got kicked out of school. Nothing actually happened except a bunch of narcissists got some attention, mostly from each other. While it isn't the main reason for my vote, it also occurs to me that Wikipedia doesn't do Usenet, slashdot, etc, any favors when it acts as an enabler for trolls seeking attention and notoriety. --BM 00:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Notoriety is of course given as a reason for inclusion. It's quite clear that these people have "some measure" of notoriety. Few people who use Usenet don't know who they are, and in particular anyone who is interested in trolls, trolling and the like -- and people are, whehter you approve or not -- is familiar with them.Dr Zen 01:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd vote to delete an article on some drunk bar brawl, too, and drunks have better reasons for fighting than these people. That someone would remember enough to write this almost ten years after the fact gives me pause, but not enough. Give it a brief mention on some article about trolling or whatever. Everyking 09:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's interesting, and that's reason enough. Plus, if it has already survived one vfd, then there is no reason to delete it. Dan100 11:01, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting. Willy on Wheels 16:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting & informative Jasoncart 20:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting. Erik 16:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dbenbenn 04:08, 3 Jan 2005 (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/Meow_Wars_(0th_nomination)&oldid=1138072844"