Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Alphaism

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 speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G3; creator admits article is a hoax. Creator/nominator also blocked indefinitely under WP:NOTHERE. KrakatoaKatie 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Alphaism

• Project Alphaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Article about internet trolls. Please discuss before deletion. EdytaGocek (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No references, does not meet general notability guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said, it's very odd for an article's creator to propose its deletion. Are you not sure whether the article should be here, and want the opinion of others? ubiquity (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete If the only author of an article wants it deleted, shouldn't that count as WP:CSD#G7? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not speedy. Someone else marked it as a speedy before, and I brought the article back and marked it as a discussed deletion. I don't like people with My article I spent 2 hours creating, and they read it for 5 seconds and decide it should be immediately deleted. That's just not right. So I respectfully put it in discussion. EdytaGocek (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)— EdytaGocek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • @EdytaGocek: Your article was deleted the first time based on WP:CSD#G7 (author-requested deletion). Did you delete all of the page contents? That is generally taken as a sign that the article should be deleted. In this case, you have nominated the page for deletion, when no one else had yet tagged it for deletion. You are seriously complicating matters here. Also, do not remove other users' comments from this discussion page. Make your own comments, but leave others' comments intact. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I didn't mean to delete your comment! EdytaGocek (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (new rationale): Given that the author has indicated they do not wish the article deleted, WP:CSD#G7 does not apply. However, WP:CSD#A7 does, as this is still just a non-notable group of internet trolls. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should an article that someone spent so much time on be speedied? EdytaGocek (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @EdytaGocek: I'm sorry if you feel your efforts have been wasted, but Wikipedia does have criteria for inclusion: not every thing that exists gets to be included at Wikipedia. Since you appear also to be a member of this self-identified group of Internet trolls, might I suggest that you also look at the conflict of interest and vandalism policies? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The person leading the group is a female from Poland, believed actually to be named Edyta, however her actual surname is unknown." So furthermore, not necessarily. EdytaGocek (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A7 looks like it applies here. The lack of references and lack of search results make this A7 at best, G3 at worst. Nthep (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment {{db-club}} has been applied to the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A7, article makes no attempt to assert any significance or provide any sources to confirm its existence. Some concern that as a story written by self-confessed "internet trolls" mentioning various people by their full names, it could be an oblique attack page. --McGeddon (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:McGeddon and @everyone else too, Their full names were entirely made up by anonymous users, as the article even says itself. How would I be attacking anyone? Edyta Gocek and (Redacted), all these are nothing more than fictional characters. EdytaGocek (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, with the administrator taking their pick of several relevant criteria. A7 clearly applies and would be my first choice. Also, regardless of whether this could be deemed an attack page (as might be the case if the "fiction" element were a sham for disparagement), there are certainly BLP concerns regarding the people on whom the characters are based and/or those authoring the fiction. The BLP concerns aren't necessary to qualify this for speedy deletion, but they present a strong argument as to why that qualifying speedy deletion should be carried out. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I am not really associated with the PZU. Just to let you know, that is also just a fictional part of the story. Does that count as a company attack?

"Edyta comes from a rich family, one related to the owner of PZU, an insurance company that is one of the largest financial institutions in all of Poland. Because of this, Edyta owns her own small house and lives alone, and pays her bills without much support from her parents or other people." EdytaGocek (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EdytaGocek Instead of all these denials about things; why, when everyone else says this isn't a notable topic and is unreferenced aren't you addressing the issues that if addressed properly would save the article? Nthep (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me that? EdytaGocek (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are the one who created the article and would like it to remain but don't seem bothered to do anything about it. Nthep (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because how on earth am I going to save this article? I know Wikipedia, this article will definitely get deleted. There are literally no internet sources at all whatsoever, the users didn't go anywhere outside of the chat sites and chat apps, so there's no reason to even keep this article. I just wanted there to be a discussion, cuz that's at least fair, right? EdytaGocek (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew from the start that a Wikipedia article about this wouldn't apply, so I thought that if I made the article extremely long that it would take a couple years for people to finally notice, therefore our organization would have its own article without even having any sources. Unfortunately it seems you can't beat Wikipedia, someone noticed. You win, delete. EdytaGocek (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that I succeeded in dragging out a 2-3 hour discussion about something that was completely useless, I just wasted 2-3 hours of people's time. EdytaGocek (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Bravo, Edtya. You successfully trolled us about trolling. Except that if you will add up the time it took to write these responses, I think you will find that you wasted no more than a few minutes of any one person's time, excepting yourself. I totally agree you wasted 2-3 hours of your OWN time, even more if one includes the 2 hours you claim it took you to write the article. I hope you enjoyed it all. ubiquity (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2015 (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.