Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khakain

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 an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. --Michael Snow 23:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Khakain

It's a forum about The Legend of Zelda series. 43 unique Google hits on "khakain.com". [1] Alexa rank 2,221,730. [2] Doesn't seem to have gained enough notability to warrant an article. Likely a vanity page. --Plek 19:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - 'A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates.
  
  Furthermore, it should be noted that an article is not a "vanity" page simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is to salient material and not overtly promotional.' Khakain 22:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE - I am the person who they (The members of that forum) are naming on that entry. Khakain is the name of my novel, Khakain the Coming of the Chosen One, I wrote it in 1994 and posted a few chapters on my literary site "Unlimited Fantasy". These members registered the domain name out of spite for me because I shut down their community from my Zelda video game site because they would harass other users on the community, myself, and such. I was hosting the image they think is "Max Fichtl" on my private server and it was hacked without my permission and paraded around thier own forum as some trophy. They have subsequently over the past few years on several occasions attempted to discover my personal identity. At one point in time they posted my phone number on their forum and made prank calls and harrassed my family as late as 3 AM at night. Recently after contacting the teenager, *deleted by said teenager*, who registered the domain and firmly asking for the entire removal of the users attempting to steal my identity, he transferred ownership that day of the domain to an Australian, Andrew Maher, to what he thinks would wash his hands of the issue. This entire entry on Wikipedia is designed to be inflamitory and harrass me. I have attempted at editing the entry 3 times already to remove personal information and harrassment, and replace the entry with the accuracy of what Khakain actually is however each time it was reverted to what it was before by members of their community who likely share the "Khakain" user account, "Castle Guard" (John M.) as well is a member of their forum classified as the "Historian." I have collected an orgy of evidence on the individuals at that forum, including the location of their colleges, and their current residencies, however this is only some of them, many have managed to remain anonymous, however they've left a digital trail online which would likely be easy to follow. Many of them pride themselves in spamming the message boards I currently am co-administrator for with Hentai Pornography and spamming bot programs. I DO NOT WANT my personal information displayed in a public location online, to have my or anyone else in my family's name slandered in that way, this is a form of online cyberstalking as defined by the FBI's computer Crimes Division, and falls under their jurisdiction because it is occuring as a conspiracy between multiple individuals from several states including countries like Canada and Australia. And if the issue is not resolved in due time, I will be pursuing whatever legal recourses are available to me up to and including litigation. I hope that the users of Wikipedia see the perspective I'm coming from and remove the entry and ban users associated with creating this filth. I want to be left alone and I want to be anonymous on the internet and go about my work in peace!
  • The above from User:65.35.73.36. —Korath (Talk) 06:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Threats of legal action are against WIkipedia policies. Recommend above editer's comments be disregarded as unsubstantiated and is likely here in ill faith. 163.153.252.70 17:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment And posting the full names of those you don't like here ISN'T some form of Cyber-Stalking? How'd you get their colleges, home addresses and what not? Hm? 208.62.7.133 18:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply It's not hard to find that out when people spam your forums and you trace their IP address and call the school's campus IT department. (That was of course before I and my co-Admin banned those people and they returned on proxy servers) As well, names and addresses are included through the registrar of the domain name. I've already consulted an attorney breifly about the issue. And to clarify, I'm not going to sue Wikimedia, however entries like this could be used as evidence should I decide to pursue a case against specific individuals, if the burden of proof is not strong enough for a criminal case, my lawyer said there was plenty enough for a winnable civil one.
    • Reply Campus IT departments do not hand over the personal information of their college students, it's an internal affair they would deal with (not to mention it would be illegal under current regulations, as you do not represent law enforcement). Not only this, but your vendetta against this community is irrelevent to the subject at hand. Your writings cannot be proven to have been before the registration of this community and this "evidence" of yours is meaningless. 24.194.18.242 20:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply This is part of the novel Khakain: The Coming of the Chosen One, submitted for evidence. http://internal.tbi.net/~max/mkhakain.htm, from my literary website Unlimited Fantasy: These Realms Drift Between Me at http://internal.tbi.net/~max/uf.htm
  • Reply All this boils down to is that I want to be left alone, I don't want my name or names or photographs of myself, my family or friends posted and paraded on a public forum like Wikipedia for mockery and harrassment. It is a breach of my personal privacy. If the material is removed and the people from that forum leave me alone, I wouldn't be inclined to prosecute them, it's not something I set out to do, but I will take whatever measures necessary to protect the integrity of my identity, the quality of my work, and the security of my family.
    • Reply This is Tim/Insubordinum. Take his damn picture and name off the page, and put up a disambiguation so he can have a page for his novel. This is just going to go backwards and forwards otherwise.
• Keep - Regarding vanity pages: 'The most significant problem with vanity pages is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors. Additionally, they are often "experimental" pages to which the author never returns. The quality of a Wikipedia article is often presumed to be proportional to the number of edits, so if an article is doomed to be a one-edit page, it should be deleted.'
  
  As per the already-being-established edit history and the extent of the page's content, it is more than evident that the article serves the purpose of a collaborative effort to chronicle the history of the community, its members, and what products it has wrought (the growing subsite "Tim Hates People" being a prime example, among others -- but that's for the article, not for this page), both for new members and veterans alike.
  
  Furthermore, regarding Wikipedia's article interests: ' As Wikipedia is, or at least aspires to be, an encyclopædia, it should contain only material that some definable group of people might want to know.'
  
  The article already has more than enough information to be classified as a relevent information base, and obviously contains material of interest to the members of the community. In no way is it a promotional page; rather, its content more than speaks for its informational nature.
  • Comment by 128.61.69.109, user's first edit. --Plek 23:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What's the betting one of the creators of this article is the bloke in the picture? This is an irrelevent and insignificant community on the wide scale of things it is referring to (or at least Google and Alexa certainly think so). Average Earthman 23:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Also regarding "vanity", this community has only resided at its .com address for a little over 1/5 of its life. This was long after ties were cut with its former administrator. For this to be a vanity page, it would have to refer to itself with shameless advertising (which it does not). This is a chronicle of the community's history and portrays it accurately, showing the positives and negatives, with an unbiased point of view. --66.82.9.77 00:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Admitted vanity forumvertisement. —Korath (Talk) 00:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC) (superceded below)
  • Where? Khakain 01:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - At any rate, it's not an article to "spread the word," it's an article to "keep the word." It violates no deletion policies as is, and can easily be edited should problems arise. Khakain 01:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Speaking as a member of a community that has interacted with this one, it is nice to see the article up. I found it very informative, and it helped me write a historical overview of the war for my own webpage.--66.53.71.99 01:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Not advertisement for the forum, this article actually documents many things that have been passed down by word-of-mouth until now. It's good to finally be able to refer people to a website with all the info they want to know. The article does not promote the forum, but only describes it. --Fletcher00 03:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Above is Fletcher00's only edit. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's important to have a history of the forum available to new users and others, why can't it go on the forum, rather than on some external website? The content here is GFDL licensed, so you can legally copy it to a forum posting with a note about its source. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sure seems like some combination of vanity and fancruft--vanitycruft? There are countless web forums devoted to countless topics. Most are not Wikipedia material. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry sockpuppets. God knows how many small, non notable forums there are on the internet. They don't all need articles, and neither does this. DaveTheRed 04:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But none of those other "non-notable" communities went out and got a Wikipedia entry, did they? Seriously, I don't see how this is any of your business if we want an entry. You're simply ego tripping and I have no idea why you feel it's necessary. We created an entry to document the name and its origins, and the community is fairly large (the Empire for example, roughly 3/4 of the board's population, is underground, which you cannot see unless you've been approved). So I guess in summary, why the hell do you care so much, and do you seriously believe that you can get this deleted since it clearly does not qualify for deletion? Get a life and leave us alone. 24.194.18.242 05:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh... notability does concern us and it is our business if we want to delete this. We aren't ego tripping. If half the board is underground, well: tough luck really. That's not our choice that most of the board decided to be all dark and mysterious. I advise you to read Wikipedia:No original research. HTH. HAND. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 'It's not about promoting a forum, but recording the history. And why should anyone else but us care?' 216.78.57.72 05:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cripes. Not notable, vanityvertisement. Socks begone. -- Cleduc 05:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Just because you guys haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable. 134.48.194.48 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, no. If most of use haven't heard of it (and there are plenty of deletes here) then it's not notable. You guys just aren't a bash.org. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI thought the purpose of this was to create a complete compendium of human knowledge. Complete would imply that it would hold everything, large and small. 69.141.223.154 06:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is far from a vanity article. It's a niche article (and granted, that niche may be smaller than some), detailing a part of the history of something fairly well known to a portion of the online gaming community. It by and far represents something more than the small message board community you'd see when visiting Khakain.com. This particular message board community may not be known well outside of a relatively small corner of the internet, but that does not make it less than noteworthy. Contrary to what you may believe, wikipedia is used by more than bored freshman english students patrolling articles for an egotrip. Who are you to be judge and jury of what something appeals to? Wikipedia's great reputation is that it's "a growing documentation of nearly everything." Do your best not to destroy that.170.215.192.239
• Delete, and 216.78.57.72 inadvertently explains precisely why: a forum that nobody else but its few users should care about isn't worth having an encyclopedia entry on. Use your own web space. - Mustafaa 06:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My personal sock puppet level of three has been radically breached. Besides, the article is sub-trivial. RickK 06:51, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • prove your sock puppet theory, instead of hiding behind a cop-out, please. Khakain 06:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, gee, you never existed as an editor until this article did. That makes you a sockpuppet. And all of these anons are also sockpuppets, since they don't have User IDs and didn't edit prior to the creation of this article. That makes you and all of them sockpuppets. RickK 06:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well OBVIOUSLY they didn't exist before, they're trying to defend a project that we started and for some reason you people feel the need to all dump on. They're not familiar with wikipedia other than reading it, so I'm sorry they don't meet your ELITE standards of 'worth'. Thanks a bunch, feel real welcome here. Khakain 07:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • We get lots of people coming in here and trying to create articles about their pet web forums. It's nothing personal about you or your forum -- most web forums are not notable enough for encyclopedia articles. And the onrush of anonymous editors make people very edgy because vandalism is a major part of the forum participants who want to try to get us somehow to figure that if they attack the encyclopedia and its participants enough, somehow that will make us see the light and decide that, yes, by golly, that forum populated by vandals and personal attackers must be, somehow notable after all. RickK 07:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • You delete my comment calling someone a nerd and write here calling us vandals? How is this any different? Have you even BEEN to the forum? I personally don't care what you folks "get all the time," we obviously have not been here before and have no interest in your arguments about what usually goes on or how things usually work. We're here to defend our article on the basis that there is no reason for it to be deleted. It's factual, informative, and any of the thousands of users involved in the Zelda Forum scene in the past 6 years would be interested in its contents. Whether or not you personally think we're famous enough should not be the subject of a debate. 24.194.18.242 07:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • No, I deleted your comments calling another user a "pompous ass". RickK 00:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
            • Anon: wrong. If we decide you aren't notable enough, then your article gets deleted. Personally, I think this article is not neutrally written, and it is not written in an encyclopedeic (sp?) manner. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Note to all first-time editors: Just adding "keep" votes from anonymous IPs or sockpuppet accounts is not going to help. Those votes are most likely going to be disregarded by the administrator who will process this entry. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. If you think this article should stay, improve it, so other Wikipedians would want to keep it on its own merits. --Plek 06:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Given 65.35.73.36's comment, and a closer reading of this "article", I'm inclined to say speedy as personal-attack vandalism. —Korath (Talk) 06:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article contains no personal attacks. It is entirely factual in every way and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Not that proof is something you people seem to need around here. 24.194.18.242 07:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks will be deleted. If you can't argue on the merits of the article, then you might want to find another place besides here to post. RickK 07:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and recommend that all anonymous IPs that have signed should know better and register an account. To the admin who counts the votes, may I suggest we don't count the anons? Looks pretty suspicious to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and recommend that the above poster stop making assumptions. It would be silly for all of us to register an account if we're only going to use it to defend our own page from you people. None of your arguments make sense in the least. 163.153.252.70 17:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Defend your page from us people? If you wanted control over the article, you should have put it on your own server, not here. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - straight up web forum vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's one big unsourced attack page. --iMb~Mw 08:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it's established why this message board stands out from any other. - Vague | Rant 08:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if only to spite these supercilious people mewling about how it's not "worthy" enough for them, and anyone who disagrees must be a sockpuppet. What harm is it doing if it stays? Leave it alone.
  • Unsigned comment above by User:172.212.81.23, first edit from this IP. --Plek 09:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 18:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment to new editors: You won't convince us of anything by arguing with us about our own rules and policies or trying to convince experienced editors that you have a better idea of what Wikipedia is than they do. What will convince people is objective evidence of notability such as google hits, news articles, etc. Gamaliel 19:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply Ignoring the points that have been made and riding on your claim to "experience" doesn't prove much either.
• Comment Perhaps we were mistaken with regards to the experienced editors. However, I think I speak on the behalf of the entire community when I say that, according to the posted, [and perhaps mistakenly taken to be] official deletion policies, it seems well within the spirit of the encyclopedia's goals. It's not that we believe we have a better idea of what this is, but rather that, based on the material available (some of which is quoted in the first two "keep" votes, and we would like refuted), this was a valid article providing "material that some definable group of people might want to know." In our eyes, all the reasons given to delete this article are either in direct opposition to what we thought was the policy, or can be amended with recommendations and support, which is more than available. I've already voted, but we're as stated, we're quite new to the Wiki thing. In fact, we're probably wasting your time already, but some of us want closure on the matter; we've received very little constructive criticism, and yet are told that we could have this article if certain things are done. Could someone please refute these interpretations of the various Wiki-related information pertaining to this debate? Forgive my summary rather than direct quoting:

From the vanity page definition, regarding fame, we interpreted: "Don't delete just because it's not famous."

And many of the delete reasons seem to say, either explicitly or implicitly: "It's not famous enough, therefore you're either advertising or this is too worthless to exist."

From the deletion policy regarding anonymous votes: "Don't discount anonymous votes because it violates the premise of good faith in submissions and discourages potential contributions."

The prevailing opinion of many delete voters seems to be this: "You should've known better and registered an account, sockpuppet."

We looked up the definition of sockpuppets, and this is the general idea we got from the Wiki definition; interpreting sockpuppets seems to be a case of good vs. ill faith, but does NOT seem to apply to separate entities taking one side on a matter: "Sockpuppets refer to users running multiple accounts, and while not against the rules, are generally frowned upon."

Nonetheless, this is the prevailing opinion we seem to be getting: "Even though you're obviously a full community posting and we've admitted this, this looks suspicious and these are all sockpuppets because it's their first edit. Disregard them."

Explanations appreciated; those of us who started/suggested this project bear no ill will here; this just seems a bit hypocritical. 128.61.69.109 20:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and those arguing for keeping this article must show that this subject is important enough for an encyclopedia. Not important enough to some niche group or to the people on that forum, but for a general reference work. What makes this different from and more important than any of the countless other forums on the internet? Is it frequented by anyone famous or important? Does it have specialized knowledge of a particular subject? Has it gotten significant media coverage? Objective evidence is what is required here, not a particular interpretation of our own rules. (This is what back in my D&D days we called "rules lawyering".) The best thing you can do to make a case for this article is to provide such evidence. Voting en masse will not do it, as the tallying administrator will most likely toss out your votes as they are allowed to do by policy. This policy is to prevent new users from rushing in from a blog or message board with a particular agenda who don't necessarily have Wikipedia's best interests in mind from overwheliming established Wikipeida users. Given that this policy is designed to prevent precisely what is happening here, you won't be able to argue out of this either. I'm sorry if you think this is unfair, but Wikipedia is not a democracy. Even in a democracy, you can't just show up from outside the society and vote the next day. Gamaliel 21:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment #2 Re. 128.61.69.109's questions (composed simultaneously with the post above): Thank you for the sincere and well-formulated questions. I'll try to provide some answers here. First of all, it would help to realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and strives to provide a wide range of articles that are both accurate, and that might be interesting and useful to the general public. It is not a general knowledge base. This means that the subject of an article has to have a certain level of notability. An example: while I could write a compelling and factually accurate article about my local greengrocer, it is doubtful that anyone outside my neighborhood would be interested in his story. Therefore, the greengrocer might warrant an article in the local newspaper but not in Wikipedia.

A similar choice has to be made about articles pertaining to websites. There are millions out there, and not every one of them is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. To gauge the notability of a site, "hard" criteria can be used, such as the number of Google hits and the Alexa rank (which aren't too impressive for your site, I'm sorry to say). Another, and maybe even more important, criterion is: would anyone not directly associated with the website in question write an article about it? In that case, someone obviously took note, which by definition is a mark of notability. On the other hand, if the article is written by people who are (in this case) members of the forum the article is about, the subject better be something unquestionably notable, or the tag "vanity" is sure to be used. That's why the line you paraphrased reads in full: "Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional." Salient means: "of notable significance". So we're back at the requiremant of notability.

Therefore, suggestions about "improving" the article should be read as: let the article establish why your site is of importance to the general public (i.e. people other than its own members). What are its unique qualities? Why should someone take a look at your site? What contribution have its members made to the Zelda community at large? Is it mentioned on other sites, in reviews, in articles? Establish notability.

Regarding the sockpuppet comments: do realize that episodes like this, where someone writes an article about his on forum, the article gets listed here, and suddenly lots of anon users flood the place with "keep" votes, is almost a weekly occurance. It's like waving a big red flag and it will certainly lead to irritation. Imagine a crowd of people you've never met barging into your house, who start to question your choice of furniture and music. Would you receive them with open arms? Of course not. It's just not a polite way to make a first impression.

Finally, it might be useful to know that the VfD page is usually filled with very terse and short comments, that might seem blunt and unfriendly to a new member; however, this is just a way to keep this page working efficently. There are dozens of VfD votes each day, and keeping it concise (unlike my rambling here, sorry guys) is just one way of doing that. See: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. The thing to remember: it's about the article, not about you. Nevertheless, the VfD page is not the most cheerful place to have one's first encounter with Wikipedia. I'd invite you to start at Wikipedia:Welcome and take it from there.

I hope this clears things up a bit. --Plek 22:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reply to #2 -- Regards for the reply; I put together a rough outline for an overhaul of the article based on what constructive comments were made here, which should also help to account for the lack of prominence on Google/Alexa. Is this more in the spirit of the encyclopedia's goals, or is this still not nearly good enough? 128.61.69.109 04:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or at least it should be seriously edited. I'm not against Khakain having an article, but the current one is way too long and indulges in worthless trivia. Actually I still don't really know what that internet society is about. The Trends and Memes part is irrelevant to the general article, and the War section is simply ridiculous.Luis rib 21:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete," for all the good reasons already discussed above. Katefan0 23:17, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• I wish someone would explain why acid is going to rain from the sky if we allow this entry to live. Preferably without the self-justifying soundbites about Wikipedia not being a democracy.

You can argue all day that the world at large isn't interested in Khakain, but honestly, so what? What's the worst that's going to happen if this entry stays here? If people aren't interested they don't have to look it up. Try it.

• • Because this isn't your website, and the concept of VfD has been running for some time (and well before I got here as well, so don't blame me). Don't expect others to just dump the way they do things for your own convenience. Average Earthman 09:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• And I don't see why the world will end for some people if this article goes away, either. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Neither of you answered my question. 172.201.48.204
• Delete for all the reasons above. Oops, this entry was so long, I forgot that I had already voted. DaveTheRed 04:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Comment Suggest a new rule. Whenever the ratio of anon and first-timer votes to regular votes exceeds one, it's an automatic speedydelete. How bout that? Kosebamse 16:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment How about a rule where people learn to read the arguments for keeping something, instead of making up illegitimate excuses to throw them out, and repeating verbatim their own smug points which have already been answered?
  • Um, and what arguments are those? That you have a right to post whatever you want to an encyclopedia? That's not an argument, that's an assertion which those of us who have been here a while have heard before, and have rejected. Your website is not notable. If there is something that makes it more notable than the 2 million other websites which get more hits, you'll need to make that argument in the article itself, by explaining to us WHY your site is notable. You have failed to do so. RickK 20:14, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• "Wikipedia is not a democracy... Delete, not notable... A gram is better than a damn..." unsigned comment from 172.201.48.204
  • How about a rule that forces people to improve the article to address the concerns raised or find evidence to support keeping the article? How about a rule that prevents them from raising old arguments that were considered and rejected years ago? Gamaliel 17:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • And you're still doing it. We're not impressed that you rejected them years ago, especially not if this is the amount of thought you put into your decisions. Show us the original discussion where they got rejected and maybe your comment will start to mean something. For the same reason, we don't care about the seniority you attribute to yourself because you've been doing this for however long. I don't care how "jaded" you want to act, these are still copouts. As for improving the article, it'll probably happen if we have some kind of sign that it's worth the effort, i.e. that the work we put into it won't get deleted regardless. unsigned comment from 172.201.48.204
    • Nobody cares about impressing you. Beat this dead horse all you want, but winning this argument won't save this article. You have spent plenty of energy arguing here but spent none doing any of the things people have repeatedly suggested you could do to make your case. Gamaliel 18:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Such as? Unlike you I've read this entire page and can't find any. Lose the attitude and act in good faith like you're supposed to, we're willing to do what it takes to avoid deletion and you're not being helpful in that regard. 24.194.18.242 20:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, such as my edit to shorten the whole article and re-write and better explain the Themes section, and to eliminate the War section (or at least to write it from an NPOV). Are you sure you read the whole page? Luis rib 20:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I would urge you to read Plek's comments above, particularly the section beginning Therefore, suggestions about "improving" the article.... I think Plek clearly represents the perceived shortcomings of the article as it stands, and where it might need to go to remain on Wikipedia. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An article about a real forum.The Recycling Troll 22:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An insignificant forum supported by a person (maybe people) demonstrating a rather deliberate disregard for our purpose (to create an encyclopedia), our practices and our standards. (Comment: Untranscluding this very long discussion from the main page.) Rossami (talk) 02:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable forum. This votepage is higher on the Google results for Khakain than the forum itself. — Gwalla | Talk 03:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- a lot of dribble over so little. Some people need to find a life offline and learn to leave people alone. - Longhair | Talk 19:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HA! Oh the irony of that statement is delicious. Told to get offline by a bunch of wannabe college professors who troll deletion forms. 69.165.85.202 23:58, 12 Mar 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.