Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Smart flamewar

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a long usenet flamewar. I don't think it could ever be anything than original research and I'm not sure if it's notable enough to have its own article.-- JoanneB 15:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I didn't think anyone was silly enough to try to write Wikipedia articles about internet flamewars but apparently it has happened. If they've written any more of these (and they've even created a template, so I wouldn't be surprised), delete them all. Dark Shikari 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly non-notable and unverifiable. Scorpiondollprincess 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hmm, let's see. It violates WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NN. Did I miss anything? (I hope this doesn't turn into a notable flamewar also...we might have to write an article about it.) alphaChimp ^laudare 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is actually quite amusing: if you look at the code, the author used the Military Conflict Infobox for his infobox... Dark Shikari 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Uhoh. Looks like someone really brought out the big guns for that flamewar. If that's true, it would be the first ever military conflict over the internet, and certainly notable. I hope our deletion won't forever expunge a military conflict from the history of the internet...I hope. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't assert notability... wasn't Derek Smart some circa-1999 Something Awful joke? -/- Warren 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would request deletion to be withheld for a while. The article is currently serving as an outlet of an otherwise unsolvable revert war in the Derek Smart article. As it is a stub and only a few hours old it would be advisable to let it mature for at least a few days. Also, the Great Flamewar is a significant internet event that has involved hundreds of thousands of particiapans and bystanders. Mikademus 16:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia articles must be verifiable and sourced. Can you give us secondary sources for this event involving "hundreds of thousands of people"? Dark Shikari 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There are sources. Though is is unorthodox to provide an "unfinished" article, as the one discussed here, the article-to-be is under heavy construction and intentional left largely open with a skeleton header-structure as an invitation to the conflicting parties in the revert and edit war to collaborate. One of the major causes of the revert war is just the verifiability and appropriateness of sources, so I fully expect this article to be unusually well annotated. In any way, I would again recommend postponing deletion of this article until we see whether (1) the article will have stand-alone value or (2) solves the current conflict. Also, it is not yet linked from any other article (except from a talk page). Mikademus 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete whatever information about this is notable and verifiable can go in the Derek Smart article. I doubt that most of this can be verified using reliable sources, and at least some of it ("It has since spread to virtually all internet fora.") is patently untrue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, if anybody wonders whether this was a notable incident in gaming history or anything, here's what GameSpy has to say on the matter: "In the end, Smart's craziness only affected Smart, and the small group of people who continue to snipe with him on the Internet." Quoted from this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research and from what I read above this appears to be an unecessary WP:FORK created to divert an edit war elsewhere, which is not a valid reason t fork.--Isotope23 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Isotope23. Anything that is verifiable can be merged back into Derek Smart, otherwise, the whole lot of it is POV, OR, and utter claptrap. -- Whpq 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, fails WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. I'd slap an {{afdanons}} tag up there, since there's currently a RfArb up for a related flamewar. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as seriously unverifiable stuff. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a gross misapplication of {{Infobox Military Conflict}} and failing Wikipedia:Notability (silly injokes), which, while it doesn't exist right now, jolly well should. The flamewar itself is famous and should be mentioned (in Derek Smart and Battlecruiser 3000AD), where it is mentioned... but it just doesn't need an article of its own, the person and game articles are enough and more than that will just make the whole mess disorganised. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.